English Canadians' Cultural Stereotypes of Ethnic Minority Groups

TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca

English Canadians’ cultural stereotypes of ethnic minority groups: Implications of stereotype content for acculturation ideologies and immigration attitudes

Hali Kil, Kimberly A. Noels, Dayuma I. Vargas Lascano, Oliver Schweickart

Version Post-print/Accepted Manuscript

Citation Kil, H., Noels, K. A., Lascano, D. I. V., & Schweickart, O. (2019). (published version) English Canadians’ cultural stereotypes of ethnic minority groups: Implications of stereotype content for acculturation ideologies and immigration attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 70, 104- 118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.03.005

Copyright/License This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit Creative Commons NC BY ND 4.0 License.

How to cite TSpace items

Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page.

This article was made openly accessible by U of T Faculty. Please tell us how this access benefits you. Your story matters.

English Canadians' cultural stereotypes of ethnic minority groups:

Implications of stereotype content for acculturation ideologies and immigration attitudes

Hali Kila, b, *

Kimberly A. Noelsc

Dayuma I. Vargas Lascanod

Oliver Schweickarte

a Child, Youth, and Emerging Adult Program, McCain Centre for Child, Youth, and Family Mental Health, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto ON Canada b Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada c Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Canada d Département des fondements et pratiques en education, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC Canada e Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, ON Canada Corresponding Author: hali.kil @ camh.ca

Funding: This study was supported by a CGS-M from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the first author.

Kil, H., Noels, K. A., Vargas Lascano, D. I., & Schweickart, O. (2019). English Canadians’ cultural stereotypes of ethnic minority groups: Implications of stereotype content for acculturation ideologies and immigration attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 70, 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.03.005

ENGLISH CANADIANS' CULTURAL STEREOTYPES OF ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS:

IMPLICATIONS OF STEREOTYPE CONTENT FOR ACCULTURATION IDEOLOGIES

AND IMMIGRATION ATTITUDES

In multicultural societies, numerous ethnic groups co-exist, making intercultural exchanges between majority and minority groups a common occurrence. These exchanges include communication of ethnic stereotypes about minority groups (Lyons & Kashima, 2004), which can influence majority group members’ discriminatory actions towards minority groups and undermine intergroup harmony. It is therefore important to investigate the diverse stereotypes that majority group members hold about different ethnic minority groups; the socio- structural conditions under which different stereotypes emerge; and how these stereotypes are linked to emotional and behavioral reactions. In multicultural societies especially, stereotypes must be better understood with regards to how they guide members of the ethnic majority to receive ethnic newcomers and envision their acculturation into mainstream society. Using the theoretical lens of Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, and Xu’s (2002) Stereotype Content Model (SCM) and

Berry’s (1974; 2011; see also Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Sénécal, 1997) ideologies regarding acculturation, this study examined the culturally shared stereotypes that majority group English- speaking European Canadians hold regarding particular Canadian ethnic minority groups.

Moreover, we studied the structure of associations among stereotype content, perceptions of the socio-structural relations between ethnic groups (i.e., status and competition), and beliefs regarding immigration and acculturation of ethnic minority groups to mainstream Canadian society.

Stereotype Content Model (SCM)

Cultural stereotypes refer to widely held beliefs about a social group (Kashima, 2008); for instance, Canadians might recognize a common belief about immigrants, even if they do not personally endorse it. The content of stereotypes is often over-simplified and fixed, such that, according to the SCM (Fiske et al., 2002), two dimensions frame cultural stereotypes about outgroups: competence and warmth (“status” and “solidarity” with regards to ethnolinguistic groups; cf. Stewart, Ryan, &, 1985; Giles, 2016). Competence is the capability and effectiveness with which people pursue their goals, and warmth is the perception of their positive regard towards the ingroup (Fiske et al., 2002). Whether groups are perceived as high or low on these two dimensions places them into one of four quadrants: high competence and high warmth (HC-

HW), high competence and low warmth (HC-LW), low competence and high warmth (LC-HW), and low competence and low warmth (LC-LW). Thus, some groups receive “ambivalent” stereotypes; they are seen more positively on one dimension than the other (e.g. Fiske et al.,

2002; Lee & Fiske, 2006). Research has found that this two-dimensional framework can meaningfully differentiate a wide range of social groupings, including gender, socioeconomic status, mental health, age, nationality, and ethnicity (Cuddy et al., 2009; Cuddy, Norton, & Fiske,

2005; Durante et al., 2013; Eckes, 2002; Fiske et al., 2002; Lee & Fiske, 2006).

The SCM also proposes that one group’s perceptions of another group along the two dimensions depends on the perceived socio-structural relations between the two groups. The relative status and competitiveness that the ingroup ascribes to outgroups predict how competent and warm outgroups are perceived, respectively, forming specific structure-trait combinations

(Fiske et al., 2002). Congruent with this proposal, perceived status has been positively correlated with competence, whereas perceived competition has been negatively correlated with warmth (Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, 2009; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007; Cuddy et al., 2009; Russell &

Fiske, 2008).

Although the orthogonality of the SCM model suggests that status should not influence warmth perceptions and competition should not influence competence perceptions, theory and research demonstrate conflicting evidence. For example, an alternative model of stereotypes

(ABC model; Koch, Imhoff, Dotsch, Unkelbach, & Alves, 2016) posits that agency and conservative-progressive beliefs are key stereotype dimensions, with communion (similar to warmth) as a third dimension that emerges from the first two. In the ABC model, agency mirrors

SCM’s competence, but also includes socioeconomic factors that may elicit competition, overlapping SCM’s competition and competence. Additionally, communion (warmth) emerges out of agency (status) and progressive beliefs, suggesting that these are also connected. Indeed, although some studies have found no significant correlations between status and warmth or competition and competence (e.g., Guan, Deng, & Bond, 2010; Kervyn, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2015;

Lee & Fiske; 2006), others have demonstrated significant status-warmth and competition- competence correlations (e.g., Cuddy et al., 2009; Durante et al., 2013; Lopez-Rodriguez,

Cuadrado, & Navas, 2013). The pattern of relations can be even more complex; for instance, in their analysis of stereotype content regarding immigrant groups in Switzerland, Binggeli, Krings, and Sczeny (2014) found that only status predicted competence, but both status and competition negatively predicted warmth.

A limitation of much of this research, however, is that it has not used analytic techniques to simultaneously assess the two structure-trait relations while controlling for other variables.

Further, the SCM uses a person-centered approach (with mean target group ratings serving as individual data points), providing evidence of stereotype heterogeneity across outgroups using cluster analysis. A variable-centered approach that simultaneously accounts for multiple associations among the components of the SCM provides complementary data regarding stereotype globality, regardless of outgroup. In the present study, we aimed to replicate and further examine the relations among status, competition, competence, and warmth using both cluster analytic (person-centered) and path analytic (variable-centered) techniques to assess the orthogonality of the structure-trait relations proposed by the SCM, and thereby address both stereotype heterogeneity and homogeneity.

Implications of Stereotype Content

The content of a group’s cultural stereotype has implications for how people will react to that group. While most research to date has focused on outcomes related to prejudice and discrimination (e.g. Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007), it is reasonable to think that the two stereotype dimensions of SCM predict attitudes about the immigration and the acculturation of minority ethnic groups. The socio-structural perceptions of outgroups may also be related to these attitudes. For example, people hold negative attitudes toward outgroups that are seen as economically competing with or of unequal status compared to the ingroup (e.g. see Cote &

Erickson, 2009). Intergroup research of ethnolinguistic groups also shows that greater perceived vitality (paralleling the SCM’s notion of status; Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977) predicts more positive perceptions of competence and, less consistently, warmth (see Giles & Billings, 2004;

Garrett, 2010).

Ideologies regarding acculturation. In the context of multicultural societies, an important set of attitudes concerns how immigrant groups acculturate to the mainstream society.

Berry’s (2015; Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006) acculturation model suggests four acculturation ideologies that majority groups might adopt (e.g., Berry, 1974, 2011; Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Sénécal, 1997): multiculturalism (maintenance of the heritage culture and engagement in the mainstream culture), melting pot (surrender of the heritage culture with the acquisition of the new culture), segregation (maintenance of the heritage culture with little engagement in the mainstream), and exclusion (lack of support for engagement with either culture). Minority groups adapt to the mainstream society most successfully when majority groups favour multiculturalism and minority groups prefer the complementary attitude of integration (Berry et al., 2006; Bourhis et al., 1997; Pfafferott & Brown, 2006).

Given this evidence, it is important to identify factors (e.g. stereotypes) that influence the majority’s ideologies that optimize minority adaptation. A recent examination of acculturation preferences and stereotypes found that the relation between the majority’s perception of acculturation strategies used by minority members and acculturation preferences held by the majority members are mediated by stereotypes and the perception of threat to the majority’s culture, resources, and safety (Lopez-Rodriguez, Zagefka, Navas, & Cuadrado, 2014). The majority group’s favourable stereotyping of a minority group is also linked to a desire for minority members to maintain their heritage culture (Lopez-Rodriguez & Zagefka, 2015).

Further, Geschke, Mummendey, Kessler, and Funke (2010) found that majority members who held negative emotions or discriminatory intentions toward immigrants wanted immigrants to adopt the majority culture, but disagreed that the majority should adopt the immigrants’ culture.

These studies suggest that majority members’ positive stereotypes of minority groups are linked to greater support of minority integration into mainstream society. However, although the aforementioned research considered acculturation attitudes along two dimensions (i.e. heritage or mainstream culture), it did not examine their interaction as defined through Berry’s (2011) four acculturation ideologies. Moreover, the role of socio-structural relations that influence stereotype content is underexplored. Thus, in the present study, we examined whether and how the perceived socio-structural and trait dimensions of the SCM are linked to these four acculturation attitudes.

Immigration attitudes. Another important indicator of interethnic tolerance and acceptance is the majority’s attitudes towards immigration, which can be influenced by stereotypical beliefs about ethnic minority groups. In particular, the perception that minorities are competing for the majority’s resources has been tied to more negative attitudes toward immigrants (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001; Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong; 1998).

Other research found that attitudes toward immigrants were more positive when target immigrant groups were perceived as warm, competent, and similar to the majority (Lopez-Rodriguez et al.,

2014). Thus, the present study examined the association between stereotypes, socio-structural perceptions, and attitudes toward immigration.

The Present Study

In summary, two objectives guided this study. The first was to test the SCM’s posited relations among socio-structural perceptions and stereotype dimensions. The second purpose was to examine the relations between the majority’s socio-structural perceptions and stereotypes, ideologies regarding acculturation, and immigration attitudes.

SCM in the Canadian context. With existing research showing inconsistent correlations among socio-structural predictors and stereotype content, the present study used an analytic approach that simultaneously tested the relations among all four variables within the Canadian context. Previous SCM research in Canada has demonstrated similarities to US samples in perceptions of different social status groups (Fiske, 2012). In a cross-national study of the SCM,

Durante and colleagues (2013) tested a Canadian sample, with target groups of broad categories such as Blacks, Catholic people, and students. While Durante and colleagues (2013) included immigrants as a target group, immigrant groups were not differentiated by ethnicity/nationality.

Lee and Fiske (2010)’s study in the USA underscores that different ethnic groups (e.g. Italian,

Mexican, Russian, Chinese) are stereotyped in different ways along the dimensions of warmth and competence.

Applying the SCM to perceptions of specific ethnic minority groups in Canada may elucidate patterns of ethnocultural attitudes along the stereotype dimensions and potentially highlight attitudinal differences between Canada and the US (cf., Lee & Fiske, 2006). Canada differs from the US and other countries in its promotion of cultural expression, ethnocultural equality, and anti-racism through its official multiculturalism policy; its protection and promotion of the French language across Canada through its official languages policy; and its recent efforts at reconciliation with Indigenous peoples (Noels & Berry, 2016; Berry et al.,

2008). Given this national ideal, one might well ask whether cultural stereotypes of ethnic groups are similarly positive.

Because we were restricted by time for number of target groups assessed, we focused on

Aboriginal, Chinese, East Indian, French-Canadian, Filipino, Jamaican, Pakistani, and Somali groups. These groups represent some of the founding groups in Canada (i.e., French Canadians and Aboriginals), or are among the most prominent immigrant groups in demographic and/or institutional vitality in the region where the study was conducted (Statistics Canada, 2011). We also chose groups that were expected to vary along competence and warmth, based on previous

Canadian research.

The hypothesized clustering of the target groups is depicted in Figure 1. As one of

Canada’s “founding nations”, French Canadians have been downgraded relative to English Canadians on status/competence and solidarity/warmth ratings (Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner, &

Fillenbaum, 1960; Genesee & Holobow, 1989; Kircher, 2016), and continue to be negatively stereotyped by English Canadians (Bell, Esses, & Maio, 1996; Igartua, 2008). Recently, however, more positive attitudes have been reported (Berry & Kalin, 1996; Kalin & Berry,

1996). Relative to other groups in this study, French Canadians are like English Canadians in ethnicity (i.e. European-origin) and nationality (i.e. Canadian), and were hypothesized to be rated positively on competence and warmth compared to the other target groups, falling in the high competence-high warmth cluster. This rationale reflects Fiske and colleagues’ (2002) groupings, in which the social category of “Whites” was placed in a similar cluster.

Pakistanis, East Indians, and Chinese were expected to fall into the high competence-low warmth cluster. Pakistani and East Indian immigrants are generally perceived as competent by their Canadian employers (Bauder, 2003) while also being perceived as low in warmth (Esses &

Zanna 1995; Indra, 1979). East Asians, including Chinese, are often depicted as “model minorities”, excelling academically and economically compared to other minority groups (Pew

Research Center, 2012; Paek & Shah, 2003). Yet, this success can be threatening, at least in the domains of university admissions and real estate sales (Findlay & Kohler, 2010; Kim, 2015).

Jamaicans and Filipinos were expected to fall into the low competence-high warmth cluster. Jamaicans are less educated and earn a lower income than the general Canadian population (Murdie, 2003; Statistics Canada, 2007), leading to perceptions of low competence.

Simultaneously, Jamaicans are stereotyped as laid-back, listening to reggae and smoking marijuana (Hernandez-Ramdwar, 2005), perpetuating the perception that they are friendly and carefree. Similarly, with more than a tenth of Filipinos entering Canada to work as nannies (Lee-

Young, 2010), Filipinos may be perceived as warm and nurturing. However, perceptions of Filipino nannies are ambivalent, sometimes depicted as warm and loving, but not particularly ambitious (Pratt, 1997).

Aboriginals and Somalis were expected to fall into the low competence-low warmth cluster. Studies note that Canadians hold mixed and negative feelings toward Aboriginals (Bell

& Esses, 1997; Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1994). Aboriginals are frequently seen as people who receive tax breaks at the cost of Canadian citizens, dampening the Canadian economy (Burleton

& Gulati, 2013) and posing a threat to Canadian society (Kopacz & Lawton, 2011; Lacroix,

2011). Similarly, Somalis may be perceived negatively, with low levels of education, high levels of secondary school drop-out, and low employment potential (Children’s Aid Society, 2001;

Danso, 2001; Poisson, 2012). These social conditions force some Somalis into low income neighbourhoods where drugs and crime are prevalent, only serving to promulgate negative stereotypes (Jibril, 2011).

With regards to the links between stereotype content and socio-structural relations, we hypothesized that perceived status would predict competence and perceived competition would predict warmth. Considering the inconsistent findings regarding status-warmth and competition- competence associations, we had no specific predictions regarding cross-combinations.

Predicting acculturation ideologies and immigration attitudes. Our second objective was to investigate the associations between stereotypes, acculturation-related ideologies, and immigration attitudes regarding ethnic minority groups. As previously mentioned, existing studies have examined only the link between stereotypes and adoption of the host culture or maintenance of the culture of origin. Given that acculturation ideologies are more complex than these two dimensions, the present study aimed to discern whether competence and warmth link to Berry’s acculturation model (2011; 2015). We hypothesized that English-Canadians who perceived minorities as warm and competent would more strongly endorse multiculturalism (i.e., the integration of both the heritage and mainstream cultures). Those who perceived minorities to be relatively unfriendly and/or incompetent would expect the minority group to abandon their cultural characteristics (melting pot), would reject them from mainstream society (segregation), or would endorse both heritage culture abandonment and mainstream rejection (exclusion). We expected that perceptions of immigrant groups as warm and competent would be linked to more positive attitudes about immigration.

Methods

Participants and Procedure

We recruited 129 introductory psychology university students (75.8% female) to complete questionnaires during group-testing sessions. Participants ranged in age from 18-28 years (M = 19.14, SD = 1.49). All were born in Canada, identified as White or Caucasian in ethnicity with both parents born in Canada, were native speakers of English, and claimed a

European (but non-French) Canadian background. Participants were compensated via partial class credit.

Measures

Warmth, competence, status, and competition. Participants’ cultural stereotypes and socio-structural perceptions about each of the eight target groups were assessed using items from

Fiske and colleagues (2002). Six items represented competence (Mα = .92; e.g., “As viewed by

Canadians, how capable are members of this group?”), six represented warmth (Mα = .95; e.g.,

“As viewed by Canadians, how friendly are members of this group?”), two represented status

(Mα = .85; e.g., “How prestigious are the jobs typically achieved by members of this group?”), and two represented competition (Mα = .82; e.g., “How much does special treatment given to this group, such as preference in hiring decisions, make this more difficult for other groups in

Canada?”). Students rated their agreement with each statement using a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much). Questions were randomized for each target ethnic group to mitigate order effects.

Ideologies regarding acculturation. Participants’ ideologies regarding acculturation were measured using the 16-item Acculturation Expectations scale (Mutual Intercultural

Relations in Plural Societies; MIRIPS). The measure was repeated for each target group.

Participants responded on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) to four items pertaining to each of four ideologies: melting pot (Mα = .63; e.g., “This group should engage in social activities that involve Canadians only.”), multiculturalism (Mα = .78; e.g., “I feel that this group should maintain their own cultural traditions but also adopt those of

Canada.”), segregation (Mα = .50; e.g., “I feel that this group should maintain their own cultural traditions and not adapt to those of Canada.”), and exclusion (Mα = .62; e.g., “This group should not engage in either Canadian or their own group’s social activities.”).

Attitudes towards immigration. Participants’ general attitude regarding immigration, regardless of target group (i.e. presented once), was measured using an 11-item scale developed for the MIRIPS project. Participants responded on a 9-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 9 = strongly agree; α = .88; e.g., “Immigration tends to threaten Canadian culture.”).

Analytic Approach

First, two types of cluster analyses (hierarchical and k-Means) mapped the groups onto the competence-warmth quadrants. Between-cluster comparisons were conducted to identify differences in competence and warmth ratings. Second, following Fiske’s work (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007; Fiske et al., 2002), general group level and general individual level correlations assessed relationships among status, competition, competence, and warmth. The general group level correlations used a correlated averages procedure, in which average ratings of status, competition, competence, and warmth across participants for each of the rated ethnic groups were correlated to each other. This approach indicates whether a group rated as high in status and competition is likely to be rated as competent and unfriendly (low warmth), respectively. However, it does not explain individual- level associations; that is, we cannot discern whether an individual who perceives an ethnic group as high status will also see that ethnic group as competent. In addition, the small number of ethnic groups rated (N = 8) makes this correlational analysis underpowered.

The general individual level correlation overcomes some of these limitations by using an average of correlations procedure on SCM variables, within participants. Individual correlations are z-transformed, the average z-value calculated, and then transformed back to an r-value whose p-value is calculated to attain an average correlation across participants. The percentage of participants with significant correlations between variables was also calculated, indicating individual-level correlations among constructs. Since associations between each variable pair is examined 129 times (one correlation per participant), the general individual-level correlations are likely to represent population level relationships between variables, on average, within individuals. However, each individual correlation is calculated using a small sample (N = 8 for each correlation), with similar power limitations as seen in the group level correlations.

To address the underpowered nature of the above correlations, we conducted another average of correlations procedure. We calculated correlations between participants’ ratings of an ethnic group’s status, competitiveness, competence, and warmth eight times, once for each ethnic group, then the average correlation across groups for each pair of variables was calculated using the same procedure detailed above. The percentage of target groups with significant correlations was also calculated for this analysis. We labeled this analysis inter-individual correlations.

Whereas the previous average-of-correlations approach considers associations among SCM variables at the general individual level and frequency within the sample, this average of correlations approach demonstrates associations among variables at the inter-individual level and the frequency of the structure-stereotype associations within the target groups evaluated by participants. Additionally, the larger sample size (N = 129) in this analysis has the power to identify correlations of a smaller effect size.

Third, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) to investigate the associations among

SCM variables, beyond its proposed structure. This approach allowed us to assess the structure of associations as a whole instead of one association at a time (i.e., the second analytic step).

Finally, the best-fitting SEM model was used to examine links between SCM constructs and ideologies regarding acculturation and immigration attitudes separately.

The first two analytic steps were conducted in SPSS, and the latter two in Mplus 6.12

(Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012). For SEMs, good model fit was indicated by a non-significant exact fit chi-square test (χ2), a comparative fit index of .90 or greater (CFI), and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) below .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2014; Kline, 2011). The chi- square likelihood ratio difference test (∆χ2) assessed model fit differences between nested models.

Results

On average, participants rated minority groups above the median (rating of 3) on competence, MComp = 3.41, and warmth, MWarm = 3.25, and below the median on status, MStat =

2.80, and competition, MCmpt = 2.58. Participants were generally pro-immigration, MImm = 6.42, and endorsed a multiculturalist ideology, MMC = 4.12, compared to segregation, exclusion, or melting pot ideologies, MSeg = 1.89, MExcl = 1.64, MMP = 1.87, respectively. Paired t-tests indicated that multicultural ideology was significantly more endorsed compared to segregation, p

< .001, 95% CI= 2.05, 2.40, exclusion, p < .001, 95% CI= 2.30, 2.66, and melting pot ideologies, p < .001, 95% CI= 2.07, 2.42; and exclusion ideology was significantly less endorsed compared to segregation, p < .001, 95% CI= -.34, -.17, and melting pot ideologies, p < .001, 95% CI= -.32,

-.15. No significant differences emerged between segregation and melting pot ideology endorsement, p = .69, 95% CI= -.07, .11. Mean values of each measure across target groups are presented in Table 1.

Cluster Analyses of Ethnic Groups

Agglomeration statistics from hierarchical cluster analysis showed exponential consistency between solutions (i.e. no jumps). However, a 4-cluster solution would describe the groups well based on earlier studies, and best minimized the distance between cluster centers and each target group’s scores. Thus, we decided upon a 4-cluster solution (Figure 2).

A k-means cluster analysis was conducted on the 4-cluster solution to examine clustering of groups. Clusters and corresponding groups were organized and labeled according to relative mean scores of competence and warmth. The moderate competence and warmth cluster consisted of Pakistani, East Indian and Somali groups (designated hereafter as the MC-MW group).

Filipinos and Jamaicans were rated as around the midpoint in competence and high in warmth (MC-HW). French-Canadians and Chinese received high competence but moderate warmth ratings (HC-MW). Aboriginals were in their own cluster, and lowest on both competence and warmth (LC-LW).

Means Analyses of Competence and Warmth Stereotype Traits Across Clusters

To determine significant differences in competence and warmth between and within clusters, we conducted a mixed 2 X 4 ANOVA, with ratings of stereotype content as the within- subjects factor (competence and warmth) and the four cluster groups as the between-subjects

2 factor. There was a main effect of stereotype content, F(1, 128) = 17.45, p < .001, ηp = .12, and

2 a main effect of cluster groups F(3, 126) = 110.55, p < .001, ηp = .73. An interaction effect

2 emerged between stereotype content and cluster groups, F(3, 126) = 92.12, p < .001, ηp = .69.

Follow-up t-tests (Table 2) showed that the MC-MW and HC-MW groups exhibited higher competence than warmth ratings (although the difference was attenuated in the former relative to the latter group), and the MC-HW group exhibited lower competence than warmth ratings. The

LC-LW group showed no differences in competence and warmth.

Further, all clusters significantly differed from one another on competence, but not warmth. For competence, the HC-MW group differed from the MC-HW group, p < .001, 95%

CI= .32, .56; the MC-MW group, p < .001, 95% CI= -.73, -.49; and the LC-LW group, p < .001,

95% CI = 1.15, 1.55. The MC-MW group significantly differed from MC-HW group, p = .002,

95% CI= -.29, -.05; and the LC-LW group, p < .001, 95% CI = .57, .90. The MC-HW group differed from the LC-LW group, p < .001, 95% CI = .74, 1.07.

For warmth, the MC-HW cluster group differed from the MC-MW group, p < .001, 95%

CI= -1.10, -.78; the HC-MW group, p < .001, 95% CI= -.97, -.64; and the LC-LW group, p <

.001, 95% CI = 1.20, 1.65. The MC-MW and HC-MW clusters did not significantly differ from one another on warmth ratings p = .14, 95% CI = -.02, .29, but they both differed significantly from the LC-LW group, p < .001, 95% CI = .31, .68., and p < .001, 95% CI = .42, .83, respectively.

Correlations between Socio-Structural Dimensions and Stereotype Traits

The three correlational analyses assessing the status-competence and competition-warmth links resulted in similar, but not identical patterns of results (Table 3). At the group-level, status was strongly positively correlated with competence, and competition was not significantly correlated with warmth. At the general individual-level, status was strongly positively correlated with competence, and competition was weakly negatively correlated with warmth. Finally, at the inter-individual level, status was moderately positively correlated with competence for all eight target groups (Table 4) and the mean correlation across the eight groups was also moderately positive. Competition was weakly negatively correlated with warmth for half of the ethnic groups (Chinese, East Indian, Aboriginal, and Filipino) and negatively but not significantly correlated for the other half. The mean competition-warmth correlation across groups was also negative but not significant. The overall pattern of results provides some support for the hypothesis that status predicts competence whereas competition predicts warmth.

Neither off-diagonal correlations (status-warmth, competition-competence) in the group level analysis nor the correlation between competition and competence in the general and inter- individual level analyses was significant. Status and warmth, however, were significantly positively correlated both at the general and inter-individual level analyses. The lack of a competition-competence link follows the pattern predicted by the SCM, but the inconsistent status-warmth link does not. The distribution of status-warmth correlations shows significance only for 5% of our sample in the general individual level and 50% of the target groups at the inter-individual level.

These results indicate that the associations among these stereotypes and socio-structural perceptions are more complex than proposed by the SCM. Path analysis using structural equation modeling allows for the assessment of the full structure of associations hypothesized by the

SCM. Therefore, as a second step to assessing the status-competence and competition-warmth links, we tested three nested path models for each of the eight ethnic groups. The first model

(Figure 3, Model 1) examined paths proposed by the SCM, with only status-competence and competition-warmth links. Based on the significant off-diagonal correlation between status and warmth identified in standard correlations, the second model (Figure 3, Model 2) added competition-competence and status-warmth paths to the first model. In the final model (Figure 3,

Model 3) a covariance path between competence and warmth was added to the second model based on results from previous research identifying significant correlations between competence and warmth stereotypes (e.g., Côté-Lussier, 2016). Each model’s fit was assessed and cross- compared to identify the best-fitting model. The three models were assessed and compared separately for each group.

The first model fit the data poorly, χ2 = 60.16 to 143.07 (df = 4), p < .05; CFI < .60;

RMSEA > .30; SRMR > .17, and was significantly worse fitting than the second and third models. The second model fit the data better than the first model, Δχ2 = 8.06 to 42.57 (df = 2), p

< .05, but still did not fit the data well, χ2 = 28.88 to 103.08 (df = 2), p < .05; CFI < .85; RMSEA

> .30; SRMR > .06. The third model was significantly better fitting than the second, Δχ2 = 22.39 to 101.02 (df = 1), p < .05. For four out of the eight ethnic groups, the third model fit the data exactly (i.e., non-significant chi squares; χ2 =.24 to 2.12 (df = 1), p > .05), indicating that this model is reasonably consistent with the data and does not require re-specification (Kenny,

Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2014). Three of the remaining four ethnic groups showed adequate fit according to their CFI and SRMR values, χ2 = 5.52 to 9.04 (df = 1), p < .05; CFI > .92; RMSEA

= .19 to .25; SRMR < .10. RMSEA values for these models fell above the cut-off for adequate fit, potentially because the small df produced artificially high values of the RMSEA (Kenny,

Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2014). Only one of the eight ethnic groups (Somalis) showed a poorly fitting third model, χ2 = 13.33 (df = 1), p < .05; CFI = .87; RMSEA = .32; SRMR = .11, though it still fit better than the first and second models.

Given that the same model was the best fitting for all eight ethnic groups, we assessed the aforementioned three models using mean status, competition, competence, and warmth scores averaged across all ethnic groups. Once again, the third model was best fitting compared to the first, Δχ2 = 67.24 (df = 2), p < .05, and the second, Δχ2 = 87.79 (df = 1), p < .05, and fit the data very well, χ2 = .33 (df = 1), p > .05; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00; SRMR > .02. This model (Figure

4) explained 44% of the variance in competence and 41% of the variance in warmth, and indicated that status and competition significantly predict both competence and warmth. The more English Canadians perceived minority groups as holding high status, the more they perceived minority groups as competent and warm. The more English Canadians perceived minority groups to be in competition with the English Canadian majority, the less competent and warm they perceived the minority groups. A comparison of unstandardized regression coefficients indicated that status is a significantly stronger predictor of both competence and warmth than competition when both are considered together (Competence: Wald χ2 = 47.94 (df =

1), p < .05; Warmth: χ2 = 32.15 (df = 1), p < .05). Although the SCM guided associations of status-competence and competition-warmth are supported, the present findings point to more complex associations among SCM social structures and stereotypes.

Acculturation Ideologies, Immigration Attitudes, and the SCM

This study’s final goal was to examine the extent to which stereotype content predicts immigration and acculturation attitudes. We conducted two separate path analyses with competence and warmth predicting (1) acculturation ideologies and (2) immigration attitudes.

We used the mean scores averaged across target groups for each variable1, except immigration attitude, which was a general measure. For the model of immigration attitude, estimating a model without status and competition would result in a saturated model for which no model fit information is available (Kline, 2016). To avoid this problem and maintain consistency across models, we decided to use the best fitting model already identified (Figure 4) and added immigration and acculturation as outcome variables.

Acculturation ideologies. Because a model with all four ideologies regarding acculturation was analytically more complex than ideal given our sample size, we ran separate models for each ideology, then ran a complex model with all four ideologies. The pattern of results and general magnitude of associations were the same for both approaches. To be concise, we present the complex model. The results of the separate models and models by cluster are available as supplementary material.

The model with only direct effects from competence and warmth to the acculturation ideologies fit the data poorly, χ2 = 34.10 (9), p < .001; CFI =.94; RMSEA = .15 (.10-.20); SRMR

1 A first set of analyses examined separate path models for each immigrant group (i.e., French Canadians and Aboriginal groups were not examined vis-à-vis immigration attitudes). The results suggested that, although there were some minor variations across groups in terms of the best-fitting model, the most consistent paths were represented in the general model reported herein. Further information about the analyses for each group is available from the authors. = .057. Adding direct paths from status and competition to the ideologies improved model fit,

△χ2 = 33.77 [8], p < .001, so that the model fit the data well, χ2 = .33 (1), p > .05; CFI =1.00;

RMSEA = .00 (.00-.19); SRMR = .014. This model (Figure 5) explained 7% of variability in segregation, 17% of variability in exclusion, 23% of variability in melting pot, and 11% of variability in multiculturalism.

Competence but not warmth was associated with acculturation ideologies, with higher competence predicting weaker segregation beliefs. Status significantly predicted segregation beliefs indirectly through competence, B = -.25 (.10), p < .01; 95% C.I. [-.46, -.08]. The indirect path from competition to segregation beliefs through competence was statistically significant in terms of the bias-corrected bootstrap results, but not in terms of p-value, B = .08 (.04), p = .08;

95% C.I. [.02, .19], suggesting this result should be interpreted with caution. Participants who perceived minority groups as high status or as low in competition perceived them to be more competent. Participants who perceived minority groups as competent endorsed segregation less strongly. No other acculturation beliefs were directly predicted by competence and warmth.

When English Canadians perceived minority groups as in competition with the majority, they endorsed a melting pot orientation, regardless of the minority group’s level of competence or warmth. Moreover, when English Canadians perceived that minority groups held greater status, they less strongly endorsed multiculturalism beliefs. Finally, multiculturalism was negatively associated with each of the other three ideologies, whereas the other three ideologies were positively intercorrelated.

Immigration attitudes. Adding immigration attitudes to the model in Figure 4 with only direct paths with competence and warmth showed poor model fit. The modification indices revealed that status and competition may be directly associated with immigration attitudes. A model with these direct paths included (Figure 6) fit the data well, was better fitting than the previous model, △χ2 = 33.69 (2), p ≤ .05, and explained 40% of the variance in immigration attitudes. As hypothesized, greater perceived competence was associated with more positive immigration attitudes. Greater perceived competition was associated with less positive immigration attitudes. The indirect path from competition to immigration attitudes through competence was weak, and although bias-corrected bootstrap results were statistically significant, the p-value was not significant, B = -.06 [.03], p = .08, 95% CI [-.15, -.01]. Warmth and status were not directly related to immigration attitudes, but status significantly predicted immigration attitudes indirectly through competence, B = .19 [.08], p ≤ .05, 95% CI [.03, .38].

Discussion

The present study echoed findings of previous SCM research in several respects, underscoring warmth and competence dimensions as concise, psychologically meaningful dimensions of ethnic group stereotypes. However, the pattern of structure-trait relations was more complex than specified by the SCM. Further, socio-structural perceptions and stereotype traits predicted both acculturation ideologies and immigration attitudes. In the following sections, we discuss these findings and their limitations, considering directions for future research.

Stereotype Clusters

Previous SCM guided studies demonstrate that social groups usually cluster across the four quadrants defined by warmth and competence dimensions (Cuddy et al., 2009). The results of this study in the Canadian context were largely consistent with this pattern, with the eight target ethnic groups clustering into four distinct groupings. Similar to previous findings regarding ethnic groups (e.g. Lee & Fiske, 2006), the present study showed all but one cluster could be described in terms of ambivalent stereotypes, in the sense that the groups were rated high on one trait and lower on the other. As expected, Filipinos and Jamaicans were rated higher on warmth than competence and the Chinese as higher on competence than warmth, such that the

Filipino/Jamaican cluster was rated warmer and the Chinese more competent than most other groups. However, there were several unexpected findings.

First, some groups did not cluster as hypothesized. The Somali group clustered with the

Pakistani and East Indian groups, rather than with the Aboriginal group. Additionally, Pakistani and East Indian groups were rated less competent than the Chinese. Instead, this South

Asian/African cluster was rated as only moderately competent and warm. Potentially, perceived religion (i.e., Islam) was the basis for English-Canadians’ perceived similarities across these groups. A second unexpected clustering was that of the French-Canadian group with the Chinese group, perceived as higher in competence than warmth. As ethnically Western-European

Canadian citizens and co-founders of the nation, French Canadians may be perceived as competent; the relatively low warmth ratings may be due to the Québécois separatist movement that expresses a desire for distance from English Canadians.

Further, most groups were rated at least moderate (i.e., 3 or greater on a 5-point scale) on competence and warmth. In Lee and Fiske (2006), most groups were rated below a score of 3 on these dimensions. In the present study of Canadians, although competence and warmth ratings varied, most groups were not rated so low that they could be described as incompetent or cold.

The higher scores could be due to social desirability or a survey response bias to positively rate all ethnic groups. However, the Aboriginal group was rated low on the competence and warmth scales, so this explanation is not particularly compelling. It would seem that, although some groups are perceived relatively higher or lower on the warmth and competence dimensions, young adult Canadians do not hold particularly negative cultural stereotypes of ethnic minority groups, with one important exception.

Ratings of Aboriginals were significantly more negative than all other ethnic groups on both dimensions. It is possible that the timing of data collection might have exacerbated participants’ responses: participants were surveyed shortly after the highly publicized Idle No

More protests by many Indigenous groups across Canada. However, a study conducted a year later, when this movement was less salient in the nation’s imagination, showed a similar pattern of relations (Authors, in preparation). Further, the present results are comparable to findings by

Fiske and colleagues (2002), in which the poor and uneducated group fell into the low competence and warmth cluster. In Canada, Aboriginal communities often face difficult education and employment prospects (Statistics Canada, 2015); thus, the placement of

Aboriginals in the present study mirrors the findings of similarly disadvantaged groups in the

United States.

Notably, we did not find a high competence-high warmth cluster. We had reasoned that

English Canadians might regard French Canadians, a group with similar Western European roots, highly in competence and warmth relative to other target ethnic groups (see Fiske et al.

2002). This expected pattern was not found, suggesting that high competence and warmth ratings are not necessarily applied to all “White” groups, but may be reserved for the majority ingroup

(i.e., English Canadians).

Extending the Stereotype Content Model

Supporting previous studies, in our study, status positively correlated with competence, and competition negatively correlated with warmth. Strong relations additionally existed between warmth and status. The percentages of the sample showing significant general individual level correlations for each of these relationships point to the presence of individual- level stereotype variability. Stereotype variability refers to how familiarity with outgroups may influence the stereotypes we hold toward its members (Oakes, Haslam, Morrison & Grace, 1995;

Smith, Miller, Maitner, Crump, Garcia-Marques & Mackie, 2006; Zebrowitz, Bronstad & Lee,

2007). Potentially, the individual-level correlations point to participants’ distinct intergroup contact experiences. Additionally, Canada’s multiculturalist ideology may encourage English-

Canadians to support ethnic minorities’ economic successes. Thus, Canadians’ desire for ethnic minorities to prosper may propel them to learn to like (warmth) and respect (competence) them.

Our path analyses suggest additional SCM structure-trait relations beyond those originally proposed. The correlation between perceived status and warmth echoes the results of general and inter-individual level analyses, suggesting that the SCM proposed structure-trait links are not mutually exclusive. Previous findings about the structure-trait relations have been inconsistent (e.g. Durante et al., 2013), with status but not competition being linked to warmth in countries marked by greater egalitarian values. Potentially, in egalitarian societies such as

Canada (Gini coefficient of 32.6; World Bank, 2013), successes of outgroups are not considered threatening to the high-status majority, as both majority and minority individuals can prosper.

More systematic research into this possibility is warranted.

Predicting Acculturation Ideologies and Immigration Attitudes

Our findings support the claim that the majority group’s perceptions and stereotypes of ethnic minority groups predict beliefs regarding their acculturation and immigration. These results are consistent with reports that more negative attitudes towards ethnic groups and immigration are held when immigrants are seen as strong competitors for resources (Esses et al.,

1998; Zagefka et al., 2007). In the present work, when English Canadians regarded ethnic minority groups as less likely to displace the majority’s resources and as capable, intelligent, and skillful, they attributed more positive consequences to their immigration. Additionally, English

Canadians’ perceptions of ethnic minorities as capable and competent indirectly linked status perceptions and pro-immigration attitudes. This association held across all target groups, suggesting that perceptions of lower competition and greater competence link to positive attitudes regarding ethnic minorities’ immigration, regardless of ethnicity. Given that competence better predicted immigration attitudes than warmth, policy makers who wish to promote positive immigration attitudes would do well to emphasize the competencies that immigrant groups bring to the society, rather than focusing on their likeability and warmth.

The analyses linking SCM variables and acculturation ideologies present intricacies in how majority members desire ethnic minorities to culturally acclimatize. When a minority group is seen as high in status but not competing for resources, they are thought of as more competent, making majority members less likely to reject the minority (i.e. segregation). On the other hand, when the minority is seen as competing for resources, they are likely to be welcomed into the majority but encouraged to abandon their minority culture (i.e. melting pot), supporting majority resource accruement.

Our analyses also indicate that perceptions of minority groups’ high social status are related to less support for heritage culture maintenance and simultaneous majority culture adoption (i.e. multiculturalism), regardless of stereotypes ascribed. Indeed, the majority may have concerns about a minority’s high status, which denotes wealth, power, and control over resources (see Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008). These powerful minorities may assert their rights and create opportunities for social or economic injustice (Sawaoka, Hughes, & Ambady, 2015).

The status-multiculturalism link parallels the competition-melting pot link in the present study. Perceived competition may lead to majority support for minority group absorption into majority culture, rather than allowing the minority to retain their heritage. The result is in line with previous research suggesting that greater outgroup threat to the ingroup is associated with melting pot, segregation, and exclusion orientations (Florack, Piontkowski, Rohmann, Balzer, &

Perzig, 2003).

Warmth was not related to immigration attitudes or acculturation ideologies, contradicting existing research on the importance of likability for acceptance by the majority

(e.g. Bastian & Haslam, 2008; Lopez-Rodriguez et al., 2015; Verkuyten, Thijs, & Sierksma,

2014). These differences may be considered in light of research on liking versus respect.

Friendly people stereotypically exhibit communal traits and elicit liking, whereas competent people stereotypically exhibit agentic traits and elicit respect (Wojciszke, Abele, & Baryla,

2009). Possibly, if a group is well-liked (i.e. warm), they are safe, and their cultural maintenance/adoption is irrelevant. On the contrary, a highly competent group may be likely to create competition, and the majority’s best interest may not be to respect the maintenance of the group’s heritage culture.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although this study furthers understanding of the relation between socio-structural perceptions, cultural stereotypes and beliefs about acculturation and immigration, it is not without limitations. First, while our use of path analysis provides insight into the complex associations among intergroup perceptions and attitudes, the results do not address causality, including reverse causality. For instance, it may be that stereotypes about groups predict socio- structural perceptions as much as vice versa (e.g., if a group is not competent, they cannot achieve high status). Given the data’s cross-sectional nature, the present study only provides preliminary insight about the multiple pathways linking these characteristics of intergroup relations, serving as a basis for future research using methods that can better address causal claims.

Second, this study was limited to eight target ethnic groups. Given Canada’s ethnic diversity, it would be more representative to use a larger number of target ethnic groups. In particular, including an English Canadian group would provide a comparison group for ratings of the ethnic minority groups (Authors, in preparation).

Third, the sample was limited to a relatively small group of first-year psychology students from Western Canada. Replication with a larger sample size is necessary. Moreover, our data was collected in a moderately ethnically diverse, mid-size prairie city, which differs from the greater ethnic heterogeneity of metropolitan areas (e.g., Toronto, Vancouver) and the greater homogeneity of rural areas. The present locale has the second largest urban Aboriginal population at 5.9%, whereas Toronto has only 0.8% (Statistics Canada, 2017). Such variations in the distribution of ethnic groups across the country highlights unique intercultural contact within different regions of the country, with implications for diversity in cultural stereotypes (Kalin,

1996). A cross-regional assessment of cultural stereotypes could provide insights that would facilitate the adaptation of immigrant groups across different regions.

Fourth, future research could examine other constructs that predict or result from the stereotype and attitude models tested in the current study. For example, Lopez-Rodriguez,

Cuadrado and Navas (2016) found that the majority’s preference for minority maintenance of heritage culture and adoption of majority culture are related to more positive and less negative emotions toward minorities, as well as more facilitative and less harming behaviors carried out toward them. Incorporating stereotypes in predicting these relations could elucidate the interconnections among intergroup perceptions, emotional reactions, attitudes, and behaviors.

Despite these limitations, our findings suggest that stereotyped perceptions of ethnic minorities vary by group and are intricately associated beyond the parallel structure-trait relationships proposed by the SCM. Additionally, the majority group’s stereotyped perceptions of competence and competition of a minority group may be important in their being well- received and integrated into the majority culture. The present findings reveal that ethnic minorities considered to be capable may be greatly valued in multicultural societies, and that minorities appearing to be too high in social status and in competition with the majority may not be welcomed into the majority culture. Overall, the results of the present study add to the literature suggesting that a majority’s attitudes toward the integration of an ethnic minority group into the majority culture may depend on the cultural stereotypes of that particular group.

Funding

This research was supported by a Canada Graduate Scholarship (CGS-M) and an Insight Grant

(#435-2015-1825) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the first and second authors, respectively.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the MIRIPS project, which provided the instruments to assess acculturation ideologies and immigration attitudes. The MIRIPS project is being carried out in a number of countries using a common research framework and research instruments. See http://www.victoria.ac.nz/cacr/research/mirips. We would like to also acknowledge the research assistants who helped with data collection, as well as the helpful comments from three anonymous reviewers and Dr. Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti. References

Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2008). Immigration from the perspective of hosts and immigrants: Roles of psychological essentialism and social identity. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(2), 127-140.

Bauder, H. (2003). “Brain abuse”, or the devaluation of immigrant labour in Canada. Antipode, 35(4), 699-717.

Bell, D. W., & Esses, V. M. (1997). Ambivalence and response amplification toward native peoples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 27(12), 1063-1084.

Bell, D. W., Esses, V. M., & Maio, G. R. (1996). The utility of open-ended measures to assess intergroup ambivalence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28(1), 12-18.

Berry, J.W. (1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism. Culture Learning, 2, 17-22.

Berry, J. W. (2011). Integration and multiculturalism: Ways towards social solidarity. Papers on Social Representations, 20, 2.1-2.21.

Berry, J. W., & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the 1991 national survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 27(3), 301.

Berry, K., & Kalin, R. Taylor, D. (1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Supply and Services.

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 55(3), 303-332.

Binggeli, S., Krings, F., & Sczesny, S. (2014). Perceived competition explains regional differences in the stereotype content of immigrant groups. Social Psychology, 45(1), 62-70.

Bourhis, R. Y., Barrette, G., El-Geledi, S. & Schmidt, R. (2009). Acculturation orientations and social relations between immigrant and host community members in California. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(3), 443-467.

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

Burleton, D., & Gulati, S. (2013) Special report: TD Economics, Debunking myths surrounding Canada’s Aboriginal population.

Caprariello, P. A., Cuddy, A. J., & Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social structure shapes cultural stereotypes and emotions: A causal test of the stereotype content model. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(2), 147-155.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (1996). Citizenship and Immigration Statistics. Retrieved from: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/index.html

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (November 5, 2012). Notice – Supplementary information for the 2013 immigration levels plan. Retrieved from: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/notice-levels2013.asp

Côté-Lussier, C. (2016). The functional relation between social inequality, criminal stereotypes, and public attitudes toward punishment of crime. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 46-57.

Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T. & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631-648.

Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61-149.

Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyes, J. P., … Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 1-33.

Cuddy, A. J., Norton, M. I., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 267-285.

Cui, D. & Kelly, J. (2013). “Too Asian?” or the invisible citizen on the other side of the nation? Journal of International Migration and Integration, 14, 157-174.

Dalisay, F., & Tan, A. (2013). Assimilation and contrast effects in the priming of Asian American and African American stereotypes through TV exposure. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(1), 7-22.

Danso, R. (2001). From ‘there’ to ‘here’: An investigation of the initial settlement experiences of Ethiopian and Somali refugees in Toronto. GeoJournal, 55, 3-14.

Del Rio-Laquian, E. & Laquian, A. (2013). “The Tagalog Connection: The Human Side of Canada-Philippines Relations” Canada-Asia Agenda Issue 33 Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada

Dion, K. L. (2001). Immigrants’ perceptions of housing discrimination in Toronto: The housing new Canadians project. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 523-539.

Durante, F., Fiske, S. T., Kervyn, N., Cuddy, A. J., Akande, A. D., Adetoun, B. E., ... & Barlow, F. K. (2013). Nations' income inequality predicts ambivalence in stereotype content: How societies mind the gap. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 726-746.

Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47(3-4), 99-114.

Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). The immigration dilemma: The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 389-412.

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of social Issues, 54(4), 699-724.

Esses, V. M., & Gardner, R. C. (1996). Multiculturalism in Canada: Context and current status. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28(3), 145-152.

Esses, V. M., & Zanna M. P. (1995). Mood and the expression of ethnic stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1052-1068.

Findlay, S., & Kohler, N. (2010, November 10). The enrollment controversy. Maclean’s. Retrieved from: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/10/too-asian/

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P. & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902.

Florack, A., Piontkowski, U., Rohmann, A., Balzer, T., & Perzig, S. (2003). Perceived intergroup threat and attitudes of host community members toward immigrant acculturation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(5), 633-648.

Garcia-Marques, L. & Mackie, D. M. (1999). The impact of stereotype-incongruent information on perceived group variability and stereotype change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 979-990.

Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Genesee, F., & Holobow, N. E. (1989). Change and stability in intergroup perceptions. Journal of language and social psychology, 8(1), 17-38.

Geschke, D., Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., & Funke, F. (2010). Majority members' acculturation goals as predictors and effects of attitudes and behaviours towards migrants. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 489-506.

Greenberg, J. (2000). Opinion discourse and Canadian newspapers: The case of the Chinese “boat people”. Canadian Journal of Communication, 25, 517-537.

Giles, H., & Billings, A. C. (2004). Assessing language attitudes: Speaker evaluation studies. The handbook of applied linguistics, 187.

Guan, Y., Deng, H., & Bond, M. H. (2010). Examining stereotype content model in a Chinese context: Inter-group structural relations and Mainland Chinese's stereotypes towards Hong Kong Chinese. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(4), 393-399.

Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P. & Eses, V. M. (1994). The (limited) role of trait-laden stereotypes in predicting attitudes toward Native peoples. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 83- 106.

Hernandez-Ramdwar, C. (2005). Challenging negative stereotyping and monolithic constructions through Caribbean studies. Caribbean Quarterly, 51(3/4), 77-85.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Igartua, J. E. (2008). The genealogy of stereotypes: French Canadians in two English-language Canadian history textbooks. Journal of Canadian Studies, 42(3), 106-132.

Indra, D. M. (1979). South Asian stereotypes in the Vancouver press. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2(2), 166-189.

Jibril, S. (2011). “Cashberta:” Migration experiences of Somali-Canadian second generation youth in Canada. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). York University, Toronto.

Kalin, R. (1996). Ethnic attitudes as a function of ethnic presence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 28(4), 171-179.

Kalin, R., & Berry, J. W. (1996). Interethnic attitudes in Canada: Ethnocentrism, consensual hierarchy and reciprocity. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 28(4), 253.

Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486-507.

Kervyn, N., Fiske, S., & Yzerbyt, V. (2015). Forecasting the primary dimension of social perception. Social Psychology, 46, 36-45.

Sawaoka, T., Hughes, B. L., & Ambady, N. (2015). Power heightens sensitivity to unfairness against the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1023-1035. Sun, K. (2015). Foreign Investment in Real Estate in Canada: Key Issues. China Institute Occasional Paper Series, 2(3). Edmonton, AB: China Institute/University of Alberta.

Kircher, R. (2016). Language attitudes among adolescents in Montreal: Potential lessons for language planning in Quebec. Nottingham French Studies, 55(2), 239-259.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In M. Williams (Ed.), Handbook of methodological innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Koch, A., Imhoff, R., Dotsch, R., Unkelbach, C., & Alves, H. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative–progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(5), 675-709.

Kopacz, M. & Lawton, B. L. (2011). The YouTube Indian: Portrayals of Native Americans on a viral video site. New Media & Society, 13(2), 330-349.

Lacroix, C. C. (2011). High stakes stereotypes: The emergence of the “Casino Indian” trope in television depictions of contemporary Native Americans. The Howard Journal of Communications, 22, 1-23.

Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44.

Lee, T. L. & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Not an outgroup, not yet an ingroup: Immigrants in the Stereotype Content Model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 751-768.

Lee-Young, J. (2010, June 15). Dispelling the Filipino Worker Stereotype. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=41be0397-76fe- 4eed-8f05-9c2dc1eb4d10

Lopez-Rodriguez, L., Cuadrado, I., & Navas, M. (2013). Mantenimiento y adaptacion cultural de diferentes grupos inmigrantes: Variables predictoras. Anales de Psicologia, 29(1), 207-216.

Lopez-Rodriguez, L., Cuadrado, I., & Navas, M. (2016). Acculturation preferences and behavioral tendencies between majority and minority groups: The mediating role of emotions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 401–417.

Lopez-Rodriguez, L., & Zagefka, H. (2015). The effects of stereotype content on acculturation preferences and prosocial tendencies: The prominent role of morality. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 45, 36-46.

Lopez-Rodriguez, L., Zagefka, H., Navas, M., & Cuadrado, I. (2014). Explaining majority members’ acculturation preferences for minority members: A mediation model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 36-46.

Lyons, A., & Kashima, Y. (2001). The reproduction of culture: Communication processes tend to maintain cultural stereotypes. Social Cognition, 19(3), 372-394.

McAndrew, F. T. (1990). Auto- and heterostereotyping in Pakistani, French, and American college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 341-351.

Murdie, R. A. (2003). Housing affordability and Toronto’s rental market: Perspectives from the housing careers of Jamaican, Polish and Somali newcomers. Housing, Theory and Society, 20(4), 183-196.

Murdie, R. A. & Teixira, C. (2003). Towards a comfortable neighbourhood and appropriate housing: Immigrant experiences in Toronto. In P. Anisef & M. Lanphier (Eds.), The World in a City (132-191). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O., (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.

Noels, K. A., & Berry, J. W. (2016). Acculturation in Canada. In D. Sam & J.W. Berry (Eds.) Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. (2nd Edition). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., Morrison, B. & Grace, D. (1995). Becoming an ingroup: Reexamining the impact of familiarity on perceptions of group homogeneity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(1), 52-61.

Paek, H. J. & Shah, H. (2003). Racial ideology, model minorities, and the “Not-So-Silent Partner:” Stereotyping of Asian Americans in U.S. magazine advertising. The Howard Journal of Communications, 14(4), 225-243.

Pew Research Center. (2012). The rise of Asian Americans. Retrieved from: www.pewsocialtrends.org

Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. (October 2009). Mapping the global Muslim population: A report on the size and distribution of the world’s Muslim population. Retrieved from: www.pewforum.org

Pfafferott, I., & Brown, R. (2006). Acculturation preferences of majority and minority adolescents in Germany in the context of society and family. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 703-717.

Poisson, J. (2012, October 15). Somali-Canadian murders: With their sons dying, a community seeks action – and help. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2012/10/15/somalicanadian_murders_with_their_sons _dying_a_community_seeks_action_and_help.html

Pratt, G. (1997). Stereotypes and ambivalence: The construction of domestic workers in Vancouver, British Columbia. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 4(2), 159-178.

Quraishy, B. (2003). Islam in the Western media. Mediator, 4(2), 347-358.

Reitsma, K. (2001). Needs assessment: Somali adolescents in the process of adjustment: Toronto 2001. Community Development and Prevention Program, Children’s Aid Society of Toronto.

Reyna, C., Dobria, O. & Wetherell, G. (2013). The complexity and ambivalence of immigration attitudes: Ambivalent stereotypes predict conflicting attitudes toward immigration policies. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(3), 342-356.

Russell, A. M. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2008). It's all relative: Competition and status drive interpersonal perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7), 1193-1201.

Smith, E. R., Miller, D. A., Maitner, A. T., Crump, S. A., Garcia-Marques, T. & Mackie, D. M. (2006). Familiarity can increase stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(4), 471-478.

Soroka, S. & Roberton, S. (2010, March). A literature review of public opinion research on Canadian attitudes towards multiculturalism and immigration, 2006-2009. Retrieved from: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/research/por-multi-imm/index.asp

Statistics Canada. (2007). Profiles of ethnic Communities in Canada: the Caribbean Community in Canada, 2001 (Catalogue No. 89-621-XIE). Ottawa: Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, 2001.

Statistics Canada. (2011). National household survey: Immigration and ethnocultural diversity in Canada (Catalogue No. 99-010-X2011001). Ottawa: Minister of Industry, 2011.

Statistics Canada. (2015). Aboriginal statistics at a glance (Catalogue No. 89-645-X2015001). Ottawa: Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, 2015.

Statistics Canada (2017). Aboriginal peoples highlight table, 2016. Retrieved August 21, 2017 from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/hlt-fst/abo- aut/Table.cfm?Lang=Eng&T=102&S=88&O=A&RPP=9999

Stewart, M. A., Ryan, E. B., & Giles, H. (1985). Accent and social class effects on status and solidarity evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(1), 98-105.

Verkuyten, M., Thijs, J., & Sierksma, J. (2014). Majority children's evaluation of acculturation preferences of immigrant and emigrant peers. Child Development, 85(1), 176-191.

World Bank. (2013). World Development Indicators [Data file]. Retrieved from https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/world-development-indicators

Zebrowitz, L. A., Bronstad, M. & Lee, H. K. (2007). The contribution of face familiarity to ingroup favoritism and stereotyping. Social Cognition, 25(2), 306-338.

Zagefka, Brown, Broquard, & Martin (2007). Predictors and consequences of negative attitudes toward immigrants in Belgium and Turkey: The role of acculturation preferences and economic competition. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 153–169.

Table 1

Correlations among variables of interest

M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Competence 3.41 .58 .82*** .63*** -.16 .45*** -.19* -.35*** -.38*** .24**

2. Warmth 3.25 .59 .58*** -.23** .42*** -.11 -.33*** -.35*** .24**

3. Status 2.80 .42 .05 .31*** -.02 -.14 -.23** .01

4. Competition 2.58 .72 -.48*** -.06 .24** .34*** -.03 5. Immigration 6.42 1.35 .01 -.27** -.47*** .11 Attitudes

*** *** *** 6. Segregation 1.89a .49 .52 .51 -.44

** *** 7. Exclusion 1.64b .54 .62 -.48

** 8. Melting Pot 1.87a .56 -.29

9. Multiculturalism 4.12d .68

Note. For all variables except immigration attitudes, correlations were calculated using each participant’s mean scores across the 8 target groups. For example, competence is the average competence score of each participant’s evaluation of all 8 target groups. Amongst Acculturation

Ideologies (6 to 9), means differ if followed by a different subscript (p <.05).

N = 129. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Table 2 Between and within cluster based differences in warmth and competence

Rating Within Cluster Differences Cluster Groups Competence Warmth p CI Lower CI Upper Chinese, French HC-MW 3.92a > 3.18a <.001 .63 .85 Canadian

MC-HW Filipino, Jamaican 3.48b < 3.99b <.001 -.61 -.42

East Indian, MC-MW 3.31 > 3.05 <.001 .17 .35 Pakistani, Somali c a

LC-LW Aboriginal 2.57d = 2.56c .85 -.09 .11

Note: Within each row, means differ if indicated with < or >. Within each Rating column, means differ if followed by a different subscript (p <.05).

STEREOTYPES AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHNIC GROUPS 2

Table 3

Correlations between predictors and traits

Competence Warmth

General Group Level (N = 8) Status r .91** .09 Competition r -.12 -.68

General Individual Level (N = 129) Status r .72*** .20* % (participants) 50 5 N (participants) 64 7

Competition r -.03 -.21* % (participants) 11 12 N (participants) 14 15

Inter-individual Level (N = 129 a) Status r .54** .40** % (ethnic groups) 100 100 N (ethnic groups) 8 8 Competition r -.07 -.14 % (ethnic groups) 0 50 N (ethnic groups) 0 4 Note. % represents the percentage of correlations used to calculate the presented mean correlations that were significant at p < .05. N represents the number of correlations used to calculate the presented mean correlations that were significant at p < .05. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. aThere were 129 responses for each of the eight ethnic groups for which correlations were calculated.

STEREOTYPES AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHNIC GROUPS 3

Table 4

Predictor-trait correlations at inter-individual level

Competence Warmth Target Group Status Competition Status Competition French-Canadians .47*** -.17 .35*** -.05 Pakistanis .44*** -.01 .38*** -.10 East Indians .69*** -.15 .45*** -.26** Chinese .67*** .02 .34*** -.17* Jamaicans .59*** -.01 .38*** -.08 Filipinos .45*** -.05 .18* -.23** Somalis .37*** -.04 .43*** -.02 Aboriginals .57*** -.16 .52*** -.24**

Note. N = 129. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

STEREOTYPES AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHNIC GROUPS

High Warmth

Jamaican French Canadian Filipino

Low High

Competence Competence Chinese Somali Pakistani Aboriginal East Indian

Low Warmth

Figure 1. Hypothesized mapping of target ethnic groups into quadrants

STEREOTYPES AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHNIC GROUPS

Figure 2. 4-Cluster scatterplot of all ethnic groups and cluster centers. Dashed lines indicate the mean warmth and competence rating across all participants across all ethnic groups. MW = 3.27;

MC = 3.39

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Figure 3. Hypothesized models of structure of associations among status, competition, competence, and warmth. Model 1 denotes the SCM-based structure. Model 2 denotes a cross regressions structure. Model 3 denotes a cross regressions structure with added covariance between competence and warmth.

STEREOTYPES AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHNIC GROUPS

Figure 4. Retained path-analytic model: Influence of status and competition on competence and warmth. Numbers on paths are unstandardized coefficients (SE)/standardized coefficients. All coefficients are significant (p < .05).

STEREOTYPES AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHNIC GROUPS

Figure 5. SCM Variables and Multicultural Ideologies regarding Acculturation. Numbers on paths are unstandardized coefficients

(SE)/standardized coefficients. Non-significant paths (p > .05) are greyed out.

STEREOTYPES AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHNIC GROUPS

Figure 6. SCM Variables and Immigration Attitudes. Numbers on paths are unstandardized coefficients (SE)/standardized coefficients. Non-significant paths (p > .05) are greyed out.

STEREOTYPES AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHNIC GROUPS

Model 1 Model 2

Model 3 Model 4

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Figure 1. Separate Analyses of SCM Variables and Each Ideology Regarding Acculturation. Note: Numbers on paths are unstandardized coefficients (SE)/standardized coefficients. Non-significant paths (p > .05) are greyed out. For segregation and exclusion, the models with only direct effects from competence and warmth to these outcomes fit the data well. For melting pot and multiculturalism, the models with only direct effects from competence and warmth to these outcomes were poor fitting. Adding direct pathways from the structural variables to these two acculturation attitudes improved model fit (melting pot: △휒2

= 12.15 [2], p ≤ .05; multiculturalism: △휒2 = 6.25 [2], p ≤ .05) so that the models fit the data well (see Figure 6). The final models explained 4% of variability in segregation attitudes, 25% of variability in exclusion attitudes, 77% of variability in melting pot attitudes, and 41% of variability in multiculturalism attitudes, respectively. As a group, these models showed that competence but not warmth was associated with acculturation attitudes and that both status and competition were directly and indirectly associated with acculturation attitudes. For stereotype content variables, higher competence predicted weaker segregation beliefs. For social structure variables, perceived status significantly predicted multiculturalism, and indirectly predicted segregation through competence (B = -.25 [.10], p ≤ .05). Additionally, perceived competition was directly and positively related to melting pot beliefs. Thus, English Canadians who perceived minority outgroups to have higher status perceived them to be more competent, and the perception of higher competence was related to English Canadians endorsing segregation less strongly. No other acculturation beliefs were predicted by competence and warmth. Additionally, when English Canadians perceived outgroups as being in competition with the ingroup, the more they were likely to endorse assimilation of the outgroups, regardless of their level of competence or warmth. Moreover, when English Canadians perceived that minority outgroups held greater status, they endorsed lower multiculturalism beliefs. Finally, the model demonstrated negative correlations between multiculturalism attitudes and each of the other three acculturation attitudes, while the other three orientations were positively intercorrelated.

Model 1 Model 2

Model 3 Model 4

Supplementary Figure 2. Separate Analyses of SCM Variables and Ideologies Regarding Acculturation, by Cluster.