AN INVESTIGATION OF IMMIGRANT-TARGETED DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING PRACTICES By Josee Marie Alanis A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Psychology—Master of Arts 2021 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF IMMIGRANT-TARGETED DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING PRACTICES By Josee Marie Alanis The present research seeks to demonstrate the intersectional nature of the immigrant identity and the implications this poses for individuals in a hiring setting through an examination of the unique roles of immigrant status and ethnicity. Two studies were conducted to examine the intersectional nature of stereotypes of various immigrant ethnic groups in the present-day U.S. and provide an illustration of how such stereotypes may influence evaluators’ decisions to hire a candidate of a specific demographic background. Results first provided support for the need to consider immigrant status and ethnicity as distinct features by demonstrating variation in the perceptions of different immigrant ethnic groups. Results also suggested that the extent to which discrimination manifests in hiring settings is contingent on not only the characteristics of the candidate, but also those of the evaluator and the job itself. Theoretical and practical implications of this research are discussed, as well as limitations and opportunities for future research directions. Keywords: intersectionality, immigrant, stereotypes, ethnic discrimination, intergroup conflict Copyright by JOSEE MARIE ALANIS 2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my committee chair and advisor, Dr. Ann Marie Ryan, for her invaluable support, guidance, and encouragement throughout this project and my graduate school experiences thus far. I am incredibly grateful to have you as a mentor and for the developmental opportunities you have provided for me to grow and challenge myself. I would also like to thank all of the members of my thesis committee, Dr. Quinetta Roberson Connally, Dr. Christy Zhou Koval, and Dr. Fred Leong, for their insightful comments and suggestions. Finally, I would like to thank my family, my partner, Trey Barker, and the Barker family. I would not be where or who I am today without your endless love and support. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Immigration Patterns in the United States .......................................................................... 5 Stereotypes of Ethnic Minority Groups and Immigrants .................................................... 9 Ethnic Stereotypes .................................................................................................. 9 Immigrant Stereotypes .......................................................................................... 11 Perceptions of Discrimination Among Immigrant Workers ................................. 15 Discrimination in the Hiring Process .................................................................... 17 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................ 21 Study 1 Hypotheses........................................................................................................... 22 Study 2 Hypotheses........................................................................................................... 25 STUDY 1 METHOD .................................................................................................................... 30 Study 1 Pilot...................................................................................................................... 30 Study 1 Participants .......................................................................................................... 32 Study 1 Procedure ............................................................................................................. 32 Study 1 Measures .............................................................................................................. 33 Qualitative Stereotype Responses ......................................................................... 33 Negative (Positive) Stereotypes – Paragraph ........................................... 33 Negative (Positive) Stereotypes – List ...................................................... 34 Immigrant Stereotypes .......................................................................................... 35 Racial Stereotypes ................................................................................................. 35 Behavioral Stereotypes ......................................................................................... 36 Warmth and Competence ..................................................................................... 36 Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) .................................................................. 36 Demographics ....................................................................................................... 37 Manipulation and Attention Checks ..................................................................... 37 Study 1 Exploratory Measures .......................................................................................... 37 Status and Competition ........................................................................................ 37 Qualitative Immigrant Definition ......................................................................... 38 Immigrant Classification Knowledge & Knowledge Rating ................................ 38 STUDY 1 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 39 Hypothesis 1...................................................................................................................... 41 Hypothesis 2...................................................................................................................... 42 STUDY 1 EXPLORATORY RESULTS ..................................................................................... 47 Participant Race and Parental Immigration Status as Moderators .................................... 47 v Positive Stereotypes .......................................................................................................... 48 Qualitative Definition and Knowledge & Knowledge Rating .......................................... 50 Status and Competition ..................................................................................................... 51 STUDY 1 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 59 STUDY 2 METHOD .................................................................................................................... 67 Study 2 Pilot...................................................................................................................... 67 Study 2 Participants .......................................................................................................... 69 Study 2 Procedure ............................................................................................................. 70 Study 2 Measures .............................................................................................................. 71 Job Suitability ....................................................................................................... 71 Stereotype Content ................................................................................................ 72 Prejudice ............................................................................................................... 72 Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice (EMS, IMS) ...................................... 72 Social Desirability (SDS) ...................................................................................... 73 Demographics ....................................................................................................... 73 Manipulation and Attention Checks ..................................................................... 73 Study 2 Exploratory Measures .......................................................................................... 73 Realistic and Symbolic Threat ............................................................................. 73 Xenophobia ........................................................................................................... 74 Social Distance...................................................................................................... 74 Acculturation......................................................................................................... 74 Immigrant Classification Knowledge & Knowledge Rating ................................ 75 Opinions on Social Issues ..................................................................................... 75 STUDY 2 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 76 Hypothesis 4...................................................................................................................... 77 Hypothesis 5...................................................................................................................... 78 Hypothesis 6...................................................................................................................... 78 Hypothesis 7...................................................................................................................... 78 Hypothesis 8...................................................................................................................... 79 STUDY 2 EXPLORATORY RESULTS ..................................................................................... 80 Participant Race and Parental Immigration Status as Moderators .................................... 80 Qualitative Knowledge ..................................................................................................... 80 Competence and Warmth as Job Suitability Predictors .................................................... 81 Bias as a Moderator .......................................................................................................... 83 Social Distance.................................................................................................................. 85 Threat ................................................................................................................................ 85 STUDY 2 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 88 GENERAL DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 94 Theoretical Implications ................................................................................................... 95 Practical Implications........................................................................................................ 98 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 99 vi Future Directions ............................................................................................................ 102 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 105 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 107 APPENDIX A: Tables and Figures ................................................................................ 108 APPENDIX B: Study 1 Participant Instructions and Measures ..................................... 172 APPENDIX C: Study 1 Consent Form ........................................................................... 183 APPENDIX D: Study 1 Debriefing Form ...................................................................... 187 APPENDIX E: Study 1 and 2 Qualitative Codebook ..................................................... 190 APPENDIX F: Study 2 Participant Instructions and Measures ...................................... 195 APPENDIX G: Study 2 Consent Form ........................................................................... 209 APPENDIX H: Study 2 Job Descriptions ....................................................................... 212 APPENDIX I: Study 2 Candidate Social Media Profiles ............................................... 215 APPENDIX J: Study 2 Debriefing Form ........................................................................ 228 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 231 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 109 Table 2. Summary of Study 1 and Study 2 Experimental Conditions ........................................ 111 Table 3. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations ................................ 112 Table 4. Study 1 Positive/Negative Stereotypes Scales .............................................................. 113 Table 5. Study 1 Frequencies by Condition for Stereotypes - Paragraphs Codes ...................... 114 Table 6. Study 1 Word Frequencies by Condition for Stereotypes - List Codes ........................ 116 Table 7. Study 1 Top Five Frequent Stereotype Trait Words by Condition ............................... 118 Table 8. Study 1 Means and Standard Deviations by Condition for Negative Stereotypes - Paragraph/List/Scale, Competence, Warmth, Behavioral Competence, and Behavioral Sociability ..................................................................................................................................................... 119 Table 9. Study 1 Planned Contrasts and Effect Sizes for Predicted Differences in Negative Stereotypes - Paragraph/List/Scale as a Function of Ethnicity .................................................. 120 Table 10. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations for Exploratory Analyses ...................................................................................................................................... 121 Table 11. Study 1 Means and Standard Deviations by Condition for Positive Stereotypes - Paragraph/List/Scale ................................................................................................................... 122 Table 12. Study 1 Exploratory Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparisons for Differences in Positive Stereotypes - Paragraph/List/Scale as a Function of Ethnicity ................................................... 123 Table 13. Study 1 Exploratory Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparisons for Differences in Positive Stereotypes - Scale as a Function of Immigrant Status and Ethnicity ........................................ 124 Table 14. Study 1 Frequencies by Condition for Codes of Immigrant Definition Qualitative Responses.................................................................................................................................... 125 Table 15. Study 1 Frequencies by Condition for Codes of Immigration Knowledge Qualitative Responses & Mean of Knowledge Rating .................................................................................. 126 Table 16. Study 1 Means and Standard Deviations by Condition for Status and Competition .. 128 Table 17. Study 1 Exploratory Regression Model Predicting Negative Stereotypes - Scale/List, Positive Stereotypes - Paragraph/Scale, Competence, Warmth, Behavioral Competence, and viii Behavioral Sociability as a Function of Status, Competition, Immmigrant Status, Ethnicity, and Their Interactions ........................................................................................................................ 129 Table 18. Pilot Study 2 Pairwise Comparisons for Differences in (a) Job Characteristics as a Function of Job Status and (b) Candidate Characteristics as a Function of Status and Ethnicity ..................................................................................................................................................... 133 Table 19. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations ............................. 134 Table 20. Study 2 Means and Standard Deviations by Condition for Competence, Warmth, and Job Suitability ............................................................................................................................. 135 Table 21. Study 2 Results for Differences in Candidate Competence as a Function of Immigrant Status, Ethnicity, and Covariates (Prejudice, Xenophobia, IMS) ............................................... 136 Table 22. Study 2 Results for Differences in Candidate Warmth as a Function of Immigrant Status, Ethnicity, and Covariates (SDS) ..................................................................................... 137 Table 23. Study 2 Results for Differences in Candidate Job Suitability as a Function of Immigrant Status, Ethnicity, Job Status, and Covariates (Prejudice, Xenophobia, IMS, SDS) . 138 Table 24. Study 2 Frequencies for Codes of Immigration Knowledge Qualitative Responses & Mean of Knowledge Rating ........................................................................................................ 139 Table 25. Study 2 Exploratory Hierarchical Regression Model Predicting Job Suitability as a Function of Study 2 Covariates, Competence, Warmth, Immigrant Status, and Their Interactions ..................................................................................................................................................... 140 Table 26. Study 2 Exploratory Results for Differences in Candidate Warmth as a Function of SDS, Immigrant Status, Ethnicity, IMS, EMS, and Their Interactions ...................................... 141 Table 27. Study 2 Exploratory Results for Differences in Candidate Job Suitability as a Function of SDS, Immigrant Status, Ethnicity, IMS, EMS, and Their Interactions .................................. 142 Table 28. Study 2 Means and Standard Deviations by Social Group for Perceived Social Distance....................................................................................................................................... 144 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Expected Immigrant Status X Ethnicity Interaction for Negative Stereotypes ........... 145 Figure 2. Expected Immigrant Status X Ethnicity Interaction for Competence ......................... 146 Figure 3. Expected Immigrant Status X Ethnicity Interaction for Warmth ................................ 147 Figure 4. Expected Immigrant Status X Job Status Interaction for Job Suitability .................... 148 Figure 5. Expected Ethnicity X Job Status Interaction for Job Suitabiity .................................. 149 Figure 6. Expected Immigrant Status X Ethnicity Interaction for Job Suitability (All Jobs) ..... 150 Figure 7. Expected Immigrant Status X Ethnicity Interaction for Job Suitability (Low-Status Jobs) ............................................................................................................................................ 151 Figure 8. Expected Immigrant Status X Ethnicity Interaction for Job Suitability (High-Status Jobs) ............................................................................................................................................ 152 Figure 9. Study 1 Exploratory Latinx Ethnicity X Participant Parental Background Interaction for Behavioral Competence .............................................................................................................. 153 Figure 10. Study 1 Exploratory Asian Ethnicity X Participant Parental Background Interaction for Behavioral Competence ........................................................................................................ 154 Figure 11. Study 1 Exploratory Latinx Ethnicity X Status X Competition Interaction for Negative Stereotypes - Scale ...................................................................................................................... 155 Figure 12. Study 1 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Status X Competition Interaction for Positive Stereotypes - Paragraph .............................................................................................................. 156 Figure 13. Study 1 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Status X Competition Interaction for Behavioral Sociability ................................................................................................................. 157 Figure 14. Study 1 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Latinx Ethnicity X Status X Competition Interaction for Competence......................................................................................................... 158 Figure 15. Study 1 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Latinx Ethnicity X Status X Competition Interaction for Behavioral Sociability ......................................................................................... 160 Figure 16. Study 1 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Asian Ethnicity X Status X Competition Interaction for Competence......................................................................................................... 162 Figure 17. Study 1 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Asian Ethnicity X Status X Competition Interaction for Behavioral Sociability ......................................................................................... 164 x Figure 18. Study 2 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Competence Interaction for Job Suitability ..................................................................................................................................................... 166 Figure 19. Study 2 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Mexican Ethnicity X EMS Interaction for Warmth ....................................................................................................................................... 167 Figure 20. Study 2 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Chinese Ethnicity X Job Status X EMS Interaction for Job Suitability ..................................................................................................... 168 Figure 21. Study 2 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Mexican Ethnicity X Job Status X EMS Interaction for Job Suitability ..................................................................................................... 170 Figure 22. Profile 1: Non-Immigrant, Canadian, Low-Status .................................................... 216 Figure 23. Profile 2: Immigrant, Canadian, Low-Status ............................................................. 217 Figure 24. Profile 3: Non-immigrant, Chinese, Low-Status ....................................................... 218 Figure 25. Profile 4: Immigrant, Chinese, Low-Status ............................................................... 219 Figure 26. Profile 5: Non-Immigrant, Mexican, Low-Status...................................................... 220 Figure 27. Profile 6: Immigrant, Mexican, Low-Status y ........................................................... 221 Figure 28. Profile 7: Non-Immigrant, Canadian, High-Status .................................................... 222 Figure 29. Profile 8: Immigrant, Canadian, High-Status ............................................................ 223 Figure 30. Profile 9: Non-Immigrant, Chinese, High-Status ...................................................... 224 Figure 31. Profile 10: Immigrant, Chinese, High-Status ............................................................ 225 Figure 32. Profile 11: Non-Immigrant, Mexican, High-Status ................................................... 226 Figure 33. Profile 12: Immigrant, Mexican, High-Status ........................................................... 227 xi INTRODUCTION The twenty-first century of the United States has brought a series of changes in the demographic makeup of the current workforce. One of the most noticeable and highlighted changes is the increase in foreign-born workers as a result of immigration. According to the results of a 2019 Gallup poll, immigration is reported as the second-most important problem facing the country today, following only behind concerns regarding the government (Jones, 2019). In 2018, 28.2 million foreign-born persons, defined as anyone not a U.S. citizen or national at birth, were a part of the U.S. labor force, making up 17.4% of the total (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019a) and both the total number of persons and percentage of the total has increased over the recent years (Newburger & Gryn, 2009). Of the 28.2 million in 2018, the largest ethnic group was Hispanics, comprising approximately half of this distribution. Following Hispanics were Asians, who accounted for one-quarter of foreign-born workers. It is apparent that the workforce today is not the same as it was even a decade ago. Despite the increase in immigration and number of foreign-born workers, the U.S. shows a reluctance to acknowledge its standing as a “nation of immigrants,” a term believed to have originally appeared as far back as 1874 in the Daily State Journal of Alexandria (Jordan, 2018). In 2005, the phrase “American’s promise as a nation of immigrants” was evident in the original mission statement of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); however, as of 2018, the mission statement has been edited to omit this phrase (Jordan, 2018). Instead, the focus appears to be on the legality of the immigration system and the protection of American values. Whether this change was intended to reflect attempts to detach from the U.S.’s long history of immigration or to instead emphasize the importance of maintaining a strong American culture, it 1 nevertheless is a representation of the ambivalent and possibly negative attitudes towards immigrants demonstrated by many people nationwide today. In the organizational literature, there is an abundance of work examining racial and ethnic discrimination, with perceived discrimination often demonstrating negative associations with factors such as job attitudes and worker health (Triana et al., 2015). Other studies also suggest that bias, prejudice, and stereotyping are barriers to members of ethnic minority groups even before they enter the workplace, as would be the case for the hiring process (Booth et al., 2012; Derous et al., 2012; Dietz et al., 2010). Much less work to date, however, examines how these behaviors operate in response to immigrant status. It is possible that an individual’s identity as an immigrant will evoke different reactions from others that are extend beyond the effects of ethnicity. For example, immigrants may be perceived as adventurous or courageous for relocating to a different country, although previous has produced mixed results and shows that ethnicity can play a polarizing role (Lee & Fiske, 2006; Reyna et al., 2013). Another study of immigrants’ experiences in the Australian workforce revealed that employers were unaware of how to assess a worker’s qualifications from outside of the country and that hiring an immigrant could be viewed as a “risk” (Kosny et al., 2017). Therefore, even if an immigrant possesses the desired qualifications, they may not be considered for a position based on the assumption that those qualifications are not commensurate to those obtained within the country More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the existing theme and consequences of xenophobia, which appears to fuel conflict and hatred towards immigrants in particular. As mentioned, these perceptions may depend on a person’s ethnic identity, such that attitudes may differ for immigrant groups of different ethnic backgrounds. Although a person’s status as an immigrant and their ethnicity are two separate characteristics, many studies have not 2 fully distinguished between the two and lack an intersectional approach to research on diversity- and identity-related topics. This then leaves the possibility for inaccurately interpreting the attribution for discriminatory behaviors, as well as failing to recognize how unique combinations of multiple identities inform judgements and decisions. For example, in a study examining hiring outcomes for first and second generation immigrants, native applicants received more call backs compared to either the first or second generation immigrant group (Carlsson, 2010); however, it was thought that this difference could be specifically attributed to the ethnicity of the immigrant groups, rather than their country of birth or other indicators of immigration. In another study investigating perceptions of workplace discrimination in immigrant and native-born New Zealanders, ethnicity and birthplace were combined treated as a single predictor that served as a proxy for ethnic and cultural differences (Daldy et al., 2013). Although this approach may be sufficient for understanding broad differences based on group characteristics, it lacks the precision and ability needed to contrast the experiences of individuals from the same country of origin but of different ethnicities. By first examining immigrant status independently and then subsequently including ethnicity, this study contributes to the literature by delineating the previously obscured relationship between these variables and demonstrating the need to take an intersectional perspective to identity-related research. The purpose of this thesis is to examine how identification as an immigrant impacts the likelihood of being treated with discriminatory actions during the hiring process. In addition, this thesis also seeks to demonstrate the intersectional nature of immigrants’ identities by investigating the potential interaction between applicant immigrant status and ethnicity. Specifically, certain immigrant ethnic groups may be viewed more positively or negatively than others. This research will make a theoretical contribution to the existing literature in three 3 primary ways. First, by examining the individual influences of both ethnicity and immigrant status, as well as their joint influence on people’s perceptions and decision-making, the existing confound between immigrant status and ethnicity will be further clarified. Second, this work will contribute to research on intergroup threat and multiple categorization of identity to advance knowledge regarding attitudes and behaviors towards marginalized groups. Third, this work will extend discussions in the organizational research regarding workplace discrimination and potential employment barriers to the less often studied, yet growing population of immigrants and foreign-born workers. Lastly, scholars in other disciplines and policymakers can benefit from this research as U.S. immigration remains an important although often controversial subject. This thesis is comprised of six major sections. First, I present a review of the literature pertaining to immigration patterns in the U.S., stereotypes of relevant social groups and their perceptions of workplace discrimination, and experimental support for immigrant discrimination in hiring. Second, I define my theoretical arguments and hypotheses, which draw on the propositions of Stephan and Stephan’s (2000) integrated threat theory, Esses et al.’s (1998) realistic group conflict theory, and Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) social identity theory. Third, I present the methodology of the present research, which includes a two study design. The first study adopts a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to identifying stereotypes of immigrant groups, as well as the potential explanations for these stereotypes. The second study builds on this work by introducing an experimental vignette that assesses potential discrimination towards immigrants in the hiring process. Fourth, I present the analyses used to test my hypotheses and examine my exploratory research questions for each study. Fifth, I present the results of these analyses. Sixth, I provide a discussion of my findings, including 4 theoretical and practical implications, limitations of the present work, and directions for future research. All measures and study materials are included in the appendices. The following section begins with a review of the demographic background and patterns of recent immigration in the U.S.. By having a better understanding of the demographic composition of the nation’s immigrant population and its various subgroups, future research can more comprehensively address existing employment issues pertaining to immigrant status and ethnicity in the workforce. Immigration Patterns in the United States Migration to the U.S. has a long history that has been described by various waves of population movement from different areas all around the world. In 1892, Ellis Island in New York Harbor officially opened as the first immigration station in the U.S., processing more than twelve million people, mainly Russian Jews and Italians, up to the year 1954 (Foner, 2000). Over time, other predominant immigrant groups such as those from China, other European countries, and Japan arrived between the 1850s and 1900s, followed by those from Mexico, Puerto Rico, other Asian countries, the Caribbean and Latin America, and the Middle East (Feagin et al., 2003). Today, U.S. immigration follows a similar pattern and is characterized by great numbers of people coming from Asia and other North American countries. As a whole, immigrants themselves may be categorized as a single social group within the U.S.; however, a great amount of within-group diversity exists and several factors can be used to classify individuals. One of these factors is legal status, which allows for variation in the granting of privileges and restrictions to a given individual. Each classification is unique in terms of its permissions as well as the qualifications that exist to assign an individual to a certain 5 category. As an example, someone may qualify as a lawful permanent resident, foreign national on a long-term immigrant visa, refugee, asylee, or unauthorized immigrant based on their situation and circumstances for immigration. For the purpose of extending research on foreign- born workers and understanding the population of interest, three groups in particular are especially relevant to consider: resident nonimmigrants, lawful permanent residents (LPRs), and naturalized citizens. Resident nonimmigrants, otherwise known as foreign nationals on a long-term immigrant visa, are a major population of interest as this status encompasses individuals designated as highly skilled workers, although they are only permitted to remain in the U.S. for a temporary period of time. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (2018), resident nonimmigrants are foreign nationals who are legally admitted to stay in the U.S. for specific, temporary purposes (e.g., school, employment) and whose cases of admission are associated with residency. Second, lawful permanent residents (LPRs), frequently referred to as “green card” holders, have been granted lawful permanent residence but are not yet U.S. citizens (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2020a). As LPRs are allowed to be employed in the U.S. without special restrictions, they represent a valuable target population to better understand the experiences of people who have recently immigrated and those that have been in the country for a longer period of time. Last, naturalized citizens, or foreign nationals who have become U.S. citizens after fulfilling the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2019), are an important segment of the U.S. population as they have already resided in the country for several years. Naturalized citizens may or may not have become accustomed to U.S. culture and way of life. 6 In addition to specification of immigrants by legal status, different visas are issued based on the purpose for travel and are separated into the categories of immigrant visas and nonimmigrant visas. Immigrant visas are those issued to foreign nationals who intend to live and work permanently in the U.S. Nonimmigrant visas, in contrast, are issued to foreign nationals intending to stay in the U.S. for a temporary amount of time for the purpose of work, school, or other reasons (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2018). Factors that play into the decision of admittance into the U.S. include the category of admission, country of citizenship, age, sex, and destination state (Baker, 2018). For this thesis, visas of particular relevance to the target population include immigrant visas falling under employment-based preferences (e.g., EB-1 for priority workers, EB-2 for professionals with advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability, EB-3 for skilled workers, professionals, and unskilled workers) and nonimmigrant visas for temporary workers and trainees (e.g., H1-B for workers in specialty occupations). To date, it is not typical for studies to distinguish between different immigrant status and visa type, although this may be a useful and arguably critical piece of information to examine when learning how employment discrimination impacts this population. A final distinguishing factor is immigrants’ country of origin, which can also likely signal their racial or ethnic identity. In 2016, 1.1 million temporary workers resided in the U.S., representing 48% of the total number of resident nonimmigrants (Baker, 2018). Among these temporary workers, the majority (55%) came from Asia, followed by approximately a quarter from North America, a sixth from Europe, and the remainder from South America, other and unknown regions. Furthermore, the greatest number of workers from an individual country in 2016 arrived from India, totaling to an estimated 440,000, or 40% of the overall number of temporary workers. Following India was Mexico, with 130,000 workers and 12% overall. 7 Interestingly, although China comprised the second highest number of total nonimmigrants overall (15%), following behind India (25%), China only contributed to four percent of temporary workers. However, this discrepancy can be attributed to the substantial number of students (vs. temporary workers) from China. Lastly, in regard to destination of travel, California was the top single destination in 2016, accounting for 18% of temporary workers, followed immediately by Texas (11%) and New York (10%). With respect to LPRs, there were a total of approximately 1.1 million new LPRs in the U.S. as of 2018, with the general regions of North America and Asia having contributed 38% and 36%, respectively (Baugh, 2019). The greatest proportion of LPRs from an individual country came from Mexico, representing 15%. Cuba and China ranked second and third respectively, having contributed seven percent and six percent of the total. Consistent with the data on residency of nonimmigrants, the top states of destination were California (18%), New York (12%), Florida (12%), and Texas (10%). In terms of naturalized citizens, the total for 2018 included 761,901 people, again with the regions of North America and Asia each comprising approximately 36% of the total (Teke, 2019). The greatest proportion of naturalized citizens originated from Mexico, comprising approximately 17%. India and China contributed the second and third largest source of those naturalized, comprising approximately seven percent and five respectively. The top states of residence for those naturalized were California (21%), Florida (13%), New York (11%), and Texas (8.5%). Although these distinctions in status are important to recognize and may have legal implications for organizations, it is unlikely that they represent substantial distinctions in peoples’ judgements. Therefore, the current research defines immigrant as any person that is currently living in the U.S. and was born in a different country. 8 Stereotypes of Ethnic Minority Groups and Immigrants Many social groups, including those of different ethnic backgrounds may be the target of biases and discrimination arising from beliefs or misconceptions that people hold. According to Operario and Fiske (2001), the content of stereotypes describes the “characteristics” of people as grouped into various categories (e.g., race, gender), and the stereotype itself may overgeneralize, misattribute, prescribe, or condemn any behavior and characteristics related to such categories. As will be demonstrated, this categorization of people is especially likely to pose consequences to individuals who identify with one or more groups possessing stigmatizing attributes. Of interest to the current research are two related but conceptually distinct categories for stereotypes: ethnicity and immigrant status. Ethnic Stereotypes Over time, the psychological literature has become populated with studies identifying stereotypes associated with various groups. One of the earliest studies to accomplish this was Katz and Braly’s (1933) work examining stereotypes of different racial and ethnic groups. The authors found support indicating that certain traits were used to describe different groups (e.g., Americans as industrious, Turks as cruel), signaling the idea that people categorize others based on nationality, ethnicity, or other salient characteristics. Although this study did reference the importance of both public and private attitudes in determining how some groups are stereotyped relative to others, there is little discussion surrounding why these attitudes exist in the first place. As will be elaborated on later, these attitudes may emerge due to various reasons, such as a perceived competition between social groups for scarce resources as proposed by realistic group conflict theory (RGCT; Esses et al, 1998), or a perception that the culture, beliefs, and values of one group represent a symbolic threat that poses harm to the other group, as described by 9 integrated threat theory (ITT; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). In this thesis, understanding the stereotypes surrounding different ethnic groups and the underlying reasoning behind them is especially important for establishing and interpreting the individual role of ethnicity versus other factors, such as one’s immigrant status. Additional investigation into these stereotypes has shown that they may be diminishing or may not be as widely accepted (Gilbert, 1951; Karlins et al., 1969). Furthermore, they may be evolving to reflect newer, more subtle beliefs that can be more difficult to detect (Devine & Elliot, 1995; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1991). For example, rather than using a derogatory name or slur characteristic of overt racism or sexism, excluding an individual belonging to a marginalized group from a conversation or event may instead be more reflective of subtle racism. In this case, the attribution for the action may not be clear to the victim or observers, but may reflect bias or prejudice. Although these beliefs may be labelled using various terms such as symbolic racism (McConahay & Hough, 1976), sophisticated prejudice (Bobo, 1983), and modern racism (McConahay, 1986), the underlying theme is that although they are not overt forms of prejudice, they can still indicate biased attitudes and beliefs. Even though stereotyping and discrimination today can take on more subtle and ambiguous forms, there is still harm associated with them. For example, Asians have commonly been described as nerds, Latinos as criminals, and Arabs as terrorists (Chang & Kleiner, 2003). The resulting stigma can exert a negative impact on social interactions for members of these groups by influencing how others treat them. In an employment setting, this can manifest as discrimination and lead to legal complications. Today’s political climate also bears a heavy burden for those who may feel that they are especially susceptible to experiencing these negative behaviors. According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, 51% of Latino and 38% 10 of non-Latino legal residents and citizens living in the U.S. reported feelings of worry and unsafety in response to ethnic-charged stereotypical comments made by Donald Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign (Rodriguez et al., 2019). Although this study focused specifically on the Latino community in the U.S. due to the current emphasis on Mexican and Latin American immigration policy, it demonstrates the widespread impact of prejudiced attitudes towards ethnic minority groups. However, there may also be acute differences in attitudes based on whether someone was born in the U.S or abroad, which could then signal one’s ethnicity and the related stereotypes. This issue of stereotypes as they relate to immigrant status will be discussed in the following sections. Immigrant Stereotypes To date, the distinction between ethnicity and immigrant status itself has not yet been fully disentangled in the organizational literature. This may cause confusion when attempting to understand the individual influences of either immigration history or ethnicity, as well their potential combination effect. As stated earlier, a substantial body of literature has focused on stereotypes pertaining to different ethnic groups (see Brigham, 1971 for a review), but a growing area of interest concerns how stereotyping may affect immigrants (e.g., Lee & Fiske, 2006; Reyna et al., 2013). In the U.S. especially, discussions on the prevalence of xenophobia and immigrant stereotypes are not uncommon, and the topic of immigration has previously been used to fuel political agendas. Further, immigrants may already be subject to certain misconceptions and beliefs based on their national origin and cultural differences (Daldy et al., 2013; Lee & Fiske, 2006), but their status as a foreigner in their new country may be an additional stigmatizing characteristic. According to Lee & Fiske (2006), immigrants in general are seen as incompetent and untrustworthy outsiders, with this generic perception having been supported in 11 research across various countries (Cuddy et al., 2000, 2009; Eckes, 2002). Although this work does suggest a negative attitude towards this group, the underlying reasoning behind why being an immigrant is a stigmatizing quality and why this group would be vulnerable to stereotyping is not as clear. One potential answer to this question may come from recent developments and events pertaining to xenophobia in the U.S. Although this is not a new phenomenon, the rise in reports and visibility of xenophobic sentiments in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Cabral, 2021; Escobar, 2020; Zhou, 2021) provides some potential explanations for the dislike and fear of immigrants. First, the emergence and spread of the virus represent a threat to the health, safety, and economic security of the U.S and its population. According to integrated threat theory (ITT; Stephan & Stephan, 2000), such events would be categorized as a realistic threat, or sense of either perceived competition for a real resource (e.g., jobs) or potential source of harm to the well-being of one’s group (e.g., disease). Another similar perspective is that of realistic group conflict theory (RGCT; Esses et al., 1998), which emphasizes the perceived competition for valuable resources between two groups. According to RGCT, conflict results when these groups are in competition with one another for valuable resources (e.g., jobs), then leading to a situation whereby one group would be subject to negative consequences while another obtains successful outcomes. These results can then manifest into stereotypes and prejudiced attitudes directed towards the competing outgroup (Esses et al., 1998). Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) social identity theory (SIT) can further be viewed as a supplement to the ideas of RGCT. SIT states that members of an ingroup will attempt to enhance their self-image by identifying the negative aspects of the outgroup through a process of categorization based on group differences and similarities. The resulting stereotypes from 12 intergroup conflict can then be seen as stemming from this categorization process with the purpose of enhancing the self-image of the ingroup. As the number of immigrants in the labor force is expected to increase (Radford, 2019), it is likely that the perception of immigrants posing competition for jobs will also continue to increase. This then contributes to the need for ingroup self-enhancement, leading to intergroup tension, conflict, and stereotyping. These concerns of competition or other forms of realistic harm, however, may not be the only explanation for xenophobia. Another plausible mechanism is symbolic threat, defined by ITT as the perceived group differences in morals, values, standards, beliefs, and attitudes that threaten the ingroup’s interests and way of life. Symbolic threats can be contrasted to realistic threats such that the former represents more intangible reasons (e.g., differences in beliefs) for feeling a certain way towards a group. When immigrants arrive to the U.S., they bring culture and traditions that may be different than those thought by Americans to represent the norm, and these differences may lead to prejudiced attitudes and conflict. As an example, the collectivistic culture of many Asian countries may be heavily contrasted to the individualistic American culture. The corresponding expectations for social standards and norms brought by Asian immigrants could be seen as threatening to the American way of life. One extension this idea can be found in the original work of Bogardus (1933) and his social distance scale. The purpose of Bogardus’s instrument and study was to measure the level of acceptance that Americans felt towards members of various ethnic groups that were most common in the U.S. Between the years 1920 and 1977, this study was administered five times, with a much more recent replication having been conducted by Parrillo and Donoghue (2005). Overall, results of the 2005 study suggest that gender, nation of origin, and race significantly predicted the level of social 13 distance towards each group. Therefore, it is possible that the perception of realistic or symbolic threats are intimately tied to the idea of social distance between different groups. In situations marked by competition, threat, or symbolic differences between immigrant and non-immigrant groups, stereotypes and attitudes may be obscured by the role of ethnicity and its associated stigma. This then masks the true impact of immigrant status. This issue has been discussed by Lee and Fiske (2006), who claimed that people hold a limited image of immigrants and argued that other factors such as nationality, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) were important to consider in understanding immigrant groups. Using the stereotype content model (SCM) as a basis for classifying groups on the traits of warmth and competence, Lee and Fiske (2006) found support for distinct perceptions of different immigrant groups. However, immigrant groups generally were described with ambivalent (i.e., both positive and negative) stereotypes, consistent with other related work (Reyna et al., 2013). Although the SCM may allow for an examination of stereotypes of various immigrant groups overall, the two underlying components of immigrant status and ethnicity still have not yet been distinguished from one another. Furthermore, the SCM is limited to the dimensions of competence and warmth. Other relevant factors, such as perceived competition or cultural threats, may not align precisely with such constructs. This complexity of immigrant stereotypes signals the need to approach this topic with greater detail and consideration of other influential factors. Immigrant groups are unique because they can be categorized using their status as an immigrant as well as their ethnicity. This multiple categorization has previously been examined using the double jeopardy hypothesis, which states that membership into two outgroup categories will result in more negative evaluations as compared to membership in one outgroup or none at all (Sidanius & Veniegas, 2000; Derous et 14 al., 2015). The multiple categorization and stigmatization that is thought to influence people’s perceptions of social groups explains why immigrant ethnic groups may be subjected to unique and especially negative stereotypes. Furthermore, with the issue of immigration standing as one of the top current national concerns (Jones, 2019) and projections of immigration increasing over the next decade (Radford, 2019), immigrants may be especially salient in the minds of Americans today. Moving forward, stereotypes can be especially informative when looking to understand how biases and prejudice translate into actual behaviors such as discrimination. Perceptions of Discrimination Among Immigrant Workers In order to fully capture the experiences of immigrants in the workforce to better understand how organizational practices can be improved, it is important recognize the unique challenges that immigrant workers encounter. In a survey of over 1,500 participants from a large, Hispanic, non-profit organization of professional workers, Del Campo et al. (2011) found that immigrant Hispanic workers earned significantly less relative to US-born Hispanic workers, despite having similar education levels, organizational tenure, and job experience. The authors noted that this finding does not necessarily imply discrimination against immigrants, as it is possible that other factors not measured in the study (e.g., industry, hours worked) could be influencing this relationship; however, more research should continue to examine wage differentials among other potential indicators of discrimination to better understand how immigrants are treated in comparison to nonimmigrants. Another interesting finding of this study was that there were no meaningful differences in perceptions of discrimination between foreign- born and US-born Hispanic workers, such that foreign-born and US-born Hispanic workers both reported similar perceived levels of discrimination. More specifically, the foreign-born and U.S. born groups averaged slightly higher than the scale’s midpoint when asked about their 15 experiences of discrimination. Del Campo and colleagues’ (2011) conclusions contrast those of another study that did find evidence of differences in discrimination perceptions between immigrant and non-immigrant workers (Daldy et al., 2013). Compared to the similarity in discrimination perceptions found by Del Campo et al. (2011), Daldy et al. (2013) instead noted that immigrant employees living in New Zealand reported higher levels of workplace discrimination than their native-born counterparts. Additionally, the immigrant’s country of birth influenced their likelihood of reporting discrimination. Although these conflicting results could be reflective of the study context, there is a common theme pertaining to ethnicity’s role in how individuals perceive discrimination. Therefore, it is worthwhile to consider ethnicity as an influential factor in discrimination towards immigrants. In another study of immigrants’ experiences in the Australian workforce, Kosny et al. (2017) highlighted the barriers and strategies used to overcome racism and discrimination. Through a series of interviews and focus groups, several key themes emerged. First, it was clear that “getting in the door” was a primary issue. Participants described difficulty in obtaining a position comparable with their qualifications from their country of origin, as well as their language abilities being a barrier to getting a quality job. Furthermore, according to employers, hiring an immigrant worker was a “risk” that was not worth taking (Kosny et al., 2017). Whether this risk is rooted in a realistic or symbolic fear on part of the native ingroup, it is apparent that the difficulties immigrants face in the job sector can occur before they even start the job. A second theme from the study is the issue of economic insecurity and immigrants’ beliefs that they would be best off to take any position available, even if that meant enduring discriminatory behavior. This third theme, racism at work, was described by various situations in which employees they were the targets of discriminatory and racist comments and actions both by 16 members of the dominant majority group as well as the same immigrant group. As proposed by RGCT and ITT, racism could be a reaction to a perceived realistic or symbolic threat as the ingroup attempts to enhance their self-image and secure their position relative to the outgroup. As seen by Kosny et al.’s (2017) research, there are rich insights and perspectives to be gathered by speaking to immigrants about their experiences in the workplace. Furthermore, other interview-based research has also revealed the consequences of discrimination for Latino and Asian immigrant groups, showing the experience of discrimination to be a risk factor for these groups’ mental health (Leong et al., 2013). Therefore, qualitative methodologies and the resulting data yield valuable information that may both contribute to a deeper and more holistic understanding of the phenomenon of interest as well as to inform directions for future quantitative research. This section has reviewed previous work examining immigrants’ perceptions of workplace discrimination. Although perceptions and personal experiences of discrimination are useful in evaluating the extent to which discrimination affects immigrants, research oriented towards hiring outcomes has also captured disparities in treatment. By focusing on the hiring process and examining the specific factors that lead decision makers to select a candidate, researchers can approach the issue of discrimination with a perspective that emphasizes the implications for the organization. The following section will review the literature on discrimination throughout the hiring process. Discrimination in the Hiring Process In 2019, approximately 24,000 charges of race-based discrimination and 7,000 charges of national-origin based discrimination were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 17 Commission (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2020a, 2020b). When organizations or their employees hold biased beliefs or attitudes towards certain groups, discriminatory actions, even if unintentional, may emerge and negatively impact members of those groups. Consistent with the estimates from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020a, 2020b), many studies have evidenced support for hiring discrimination targeted towards different ethnic groups, such as Arabs (Derous et al., 2012), Turks (Dietz et al., 2010), and the Chinese (Booth et al., 2012). For example, one correspondence testing study showed that applicants with Middle Eastern-sounding names received 50% less callbacks for an interview than applicants with Swedish-sounding names and identical qualifications (Carlsson & Rooth, 2007). With these studies taken as a whole, it is clear that discriminatory behaviors arise during the hiring process in response to ethnic cues. One caveat regarding the interpretation of these related studies is recognition of the country in which the research occurred. For example, common stereotypes that appear in one country or culture may not be applicable to others. Other recent research has examined hiring outcomes for immigrant ethnic groups. Veit and Thijsen (2019), using correspondence testing in five Western European countries, demonstrated that foreign-born minority group members had to submit more job applications relative to native-born minority group members to receive a similar number of callbacks. Their study also showed that hiring discrimination was stronger for foreign-born minority group applicants that originated from countries with greater cultural distance to the host country, providing evidence for perceived cultural distance moderating the influence of immigrant status and the need to adopt an intersectional approach when studying immigrants. A similar conclusion has been supported by Hartman et al. (2014), who showed that offenses committed by Hispanic immigrants were rated as more offensive than when those same offenses were 18 committed by British immigrants. This combinatory effect of immigrant status and ethnic identity on severity of offenses speaks to the nature and application of multiple categorization and the double jeopardy hypothesis. As would be proposed by these frameworks, an individual who is categorized into two multiple groups (i.e., immigrant and ethnic minority) is more likely to experience consequences than an individual categorized into only one of these groups. This approach to intersectionality thus considers immigrant status and ethnicity in an additive manner, such that the effect of being an immigrant of a specific ethnic group will be stronger than the sole effect of being either an immigrant or member of an ethnic group. In conclusion, it is beneficial to consider the interactive relationship between immigrant status and ethnic identity when examining discrimination in the workplace. These results also support the idea of ingroup favoritism and outgroup threat that is characteristic of RGCT and the ITT’s symbolic threats. According to these theories, the outgroup (e.g., immigrants) is perceived as threatening to the interests of the ingroup (e.g., non- immigrants); however, in RGCT, these threats are based on perceived realistic concerns, such as competition for jobs, whereas symbolic threats are based on group differences in moral, value, and belief systems. In the case of immigrants, majority group members (i.e., non-immigrants) may perceive that people coming to work in the U.S. from other countries pose a threat in regard to competition for jobs, economic resources, and politics (Dixon & Rosenbaum, 2004). On the other hand, members of this same majority group may also believe that the cultural values and beliefs immigrant groups bring with them to the U.S. will pose harm to Americans’ way of life and sociocultural standards. In conclusion, different mechanisms exist to explain the development and maintenance of prejudiced beliefs that could then translate into discriminatory behaviors. Furthermore the 19 presented mechanisms explaining this phenomenon may not be identical across different immigrant groups. The following section builds on these theoretical arguments to develop a series of hypotheses. 20 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT The U.S. has a lengthy history of immigration, often characterized by turbulent emotions and continuous development in national policy reform. Given that an estimated 17% of the 2018 labor force (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019a) was born in a different country, this population is currently and will likely become increasingly important to the nation’s economic, social, and political landscape. Nevertheless, members of this population have also reported being the target of prejudiced attitudes and actions that can create barriers or other issues within a workplace (Kosny et al., 2017; Crispin Ballesteros, 2015; Turchick Hakak et al., 2010). The purpose of this research is to examine how different immigrant ethnic groups in the U.S. may be stereotyped and subjected to discriminatory behaviors during the hiring process. This work contributes to the existing literature by integrating a multi-faceted theoretical approach focused on intergroup threat within the workplace to understand the complexities surrounding the rapidly growing and heterogeneous immigrant population. To accomplish this goal, two studies were conducted. The first study examines the existing stereotypes surrounding different immigrant groups in combination with varying ethnic identities. Ethnicity in Study 1 is conceptualized in broad terms (i.e., Asian) in order to alleviate concerns regarding potential idiosyncrasies due to specific national backgrounds, but should still capture overarching cultural differences. The selected ethnicities are Asian, Latinx, and Middle Eastern. Previous work has suggested that Middle Eastern stereotypes may be especially negative due to associations with terrorism (Lee & Fiske, 2006). Similarly, ongoing tensions between the U.S. and Mexico and other Latin American countries have likely heightened people’s concern for their safety, well-being, and job security. In contrast, the model minority status of Asians and Asian Americans presents them as overcoming the challenges associated 21 with being a member of a minority group and demonstrating more positive characteristics that other minority groups should seek to obtain (Kitano & Sue, 1973). Because of these perceived contrasts, it is thought that these selected groups will capture the diversity of ethnic stereotypes and related immigrant ethnic stereotypes. The second study examines hiring discrimination for different immigrant ethnic groups. Ethnicity in this study is conceptualized in terms of national origin in order to maintain a stronger sense of realism throughout the experiment as well as to contrast the findings with Study 1. The selected ethnicities are Canadian, Chinese, and Mexican. Although the Chinese and Mexican groups here parallel the Asian and Latinx groups in Study 1, a Canadian group now exists to serve as a point of comparison based on the similarities to American culture. Additional justification for selection of these ethnic groups comes from Mexico, China, and Canada each contributing some of the largest numbers of immigrants from a single country in the U.S (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2020b, 2020c). Study 1 Hypotheses People from numerous countries around the world are immigrating to the U.S. and contributing to growth in the labor market; however, the negative perceptions often held towards this population are widespread. Even if individuals themselves do not endorse or agree with such perceptions, they may still be aware that they exist and that they can have a significant impact on the targeted groups. Some immigrant groups may already have a stigmatized identity associated with their ethnicity, and these ethnic identities may differ in levels of positive or negative valence. For example, Asians and Asian Americans are frequently described as a “model minority” and have been perceived as encompassing positive characteristics such as intelligence and likelihood for upward social mobility and status (Kitano & Sue, 1973; Wong & Halgin, 22 2006). In contrast, people of Latino backgrounds have often been characterized as criminals, lazy, and lacking ambition (Chang & Kleiner, 2003; Cowan et al., 1997) and people of Middle Eastern background are frequently associated with terrorism (Chang & Kleiner, 2003). In addition to these ethnic stereotypes, immigrants overall have been described as incompetent and untrustworthy outsiders and viewed negatively (Crispin Ballesteros, 2015; Hartman et al., 2014; Lee & Fiske, 2006; Stephan et al., 1999; Wilson, 2001). This may be because they are viewed as an outgroup-, competing for and posing a threat to the availability of jobs to native workers, as consistent with RGCT and ITT. Another explanation is that immigrants represent an intangible threat to American cultural, belief, and value systems, also consistent with ITT. With the population of immigrants expected to increase in the U.S. (Radford, 2019), Americans may be concerned that their way of life and cultural norms will be negatively impacted. Coupled with the propositions of SIT, the ingroup (i.e., Americans) in this scenario seek to enhance their self-image by identifying negative characteristics of the outgroup, thus resulting in the negative stereotyping of immigrant groups relative to non-immigrant groups. Hypothesis 1: Stereotypes of immigrant groups overall will be more negative than stereotypes of non-immigrant groups overall. Hypothesis 2: Stereotypes of ethnic groups overall will differ in negative content. Specifically, stereotypes of the Latinx and Middle Eastern groups will be more negative than stereotypes of the Asian group. Weaker differences in negative stereotype content are expected between the Latinx and Middle Eastern groups. As mentioned, stereotypes may be independently used to describe an individual’s status as an immigrant or their ethnicity; however, as these two characteristics and their impact on 23 others’ perceptions and beliefs are likely confounded with one another, it is also possible that their combinatory influence can explain differences in stereotypes and result in unique stereotypes for different immigrant ethnic groups. As demonstrated by Lee and Fiske (2006), adding national origin descriptions of immigrant group resulted in more specific stereotypes as compared to a generic immigrant stereotype. This multiple categorization, or double jeopardy, is a leading explanation for why immigrant ethnic groups would be subjected to especially negative stereotyping. Previous studies investigating the intersectionality and stigmatization of gender and ethnicity have found that negative outcomes such as sexual harassment (Berdahl & Moore, 2006) and negative performance evaluations (Rosette & Livingston, 2012) are more prevalent in double jeopardy conditions than either the no stigmatizing characteristic or single stigmatizing characteristic conditions. It may also be the case that ethnicity is used as an anchoring factor in interpreting the immigrant stereotype, such that perceptions of immigrants depend on a group’s ethnicity. For example, the stereotype for the Latinx or Middle Eastern groups may already be negative and therefore is not as strongly affected by status as an immigrant compared to the Asian group, demonstrating a floor effect. Together, such results still support the double jeopardy hypothesis as the double stigmatized groups (i.e., Latinx immigrants and Middle Eastern immigrants) are perceived more negatively than the less stigmatized group (i.e., Asian immigrant). Hypothesis 3: There will be an interaction between immigrant status and ethnicity on negative stereotype content, such that the negative stereotype content for the immigrant and non-immigrant groups will be moderated by ethnicity. Specifically, the negative influence of status as an immigrant will be stronger for the Asian group compared to both the Latinx and Middle Eastern groups. (see Figure 1). 24 Study 2 Hypotheses Building off of Hypothesis 1 in the investigation of immigrant-related stereotypes, biased beliefs individuals hold towards a social group may influence their behaviors. As individuals making hiring decisions are often presented with limited information on a candidate, bias may shape their evaluation of a candidate of a given social group. Previous work has suggested that immigrant groups are seen as incompetent and untrustworthy (Lee & Fiske, 2006), but no organizational research to my knowledge directly compares SCM ratings, or even broad stereotypes of immigrant ethnic groups, to non-immigrant ethnic groups. Based on the previous research cited by Lee & Fiske (2006) claiming that the prototypical immigrant is seen as incompetent and untrustworthy (Cuddy et al., 2000, 2009; Eckes, 2002), it is likely that competence and warmth ratings for immigrant applicants will be lower than for non-immigrant applicants. Again, these perceptions may be rooted in either a realistic or symbolic threat. Although not a primary research question for this thesis, it could be speculated that the former would be a more likely mechanism for negative ratings towards immigrant groups in this situation given the context of the workplace. Hypothesis 4a: Competence ratings will be lower for immigrant applicants compared to equally qualified non-immigrant applicants applying for the same job. Hypothesis 5a: Warmth ratings will be lower for immigrant applicants compared to equally qualified non-immigrant applicants applying for the same job. Using their taxonomy of immigrant groups based on country of origin, Lee and Fiske (2006) found that they could be grouped into several clusters based on ratings of warmth and competence. For example, one cluster described immigrant groups that were rated relatively 25 average on warmth but low on competence (e.g., Mexican) and a second cluster described a set of groups that were again rated relatively average on warmth but high on competence (e.g., Chinese). These distinctions reflect the influential role of ethnicity in shaping perceptions of social groups. Based on differences in the positivity and negativity of descriptions of different ethnic groups (e.g., Chang & Kleiner, 2003), applicant competence and warmth ratings of immigrant groups may therefore depend on ethnicity. Hypothesis 4b: There will be an interaction between applicant immigrant status and ethnicity on competence ratings, such that competence ratings for the immigrant and non- immigrant groups will be moderated by ethnicity. Specifically, the negative influence of status as an immigrant on competence ratings will be stronger for both the Chinese and Mexican groups compared to the Canadian group (see Figure 2). Hypothesis 5b: There will be an interaction between applicant immigrant status and ethnicity on warmth ratings, such that warmth ratings for the immigrant and non- immigrant groups will be moderated by ethnicity. Specifically, the negative influence of status as an immigrant on warmth ratings will be stronger for both the Chinese and Mexican groups compared to the Canadian group (see Figure 3). As stated, immigrant groups are often viewed as a threat to American values and personified negatively (Crispin Ballesteros, 2015; Hartman et al., 2014; Stephan et al., 1999; Wilson, 2001), although the reasoning behind why they are viewed as a threat is not concrete. On one hand, RGCT would propose that they are presenting a realistic threat to the American ingroup, but a symbolic threats perspective would claim that the threat poses harm to ingroup culture and belief systems. Regardless of the driving force behind the threat, immigrants may be viewed as less desirable than non-immigrants for a job position, which would manifest in terms 26 of negative hiring outcomes (i.e., job suitability). In considering the role that immigrant status may have on job-related outcomes (e.g., job suitability ratings), certain occupational factors may also shape people’s perceptions and decision-making processes. For example, because immigrant groups in the U.S. are frequently overrepresented in low-skill occupations (Daldy et al., 2013), people may infer that immigrants overall are only suited for low-status positions requiring little skill. This then could perpetuate a cycle of displacing high-skilled candidates into low-level jobs. The status of the job therefore could enhance the negative influence of being an immigrant on job suitability. Specifically, application to a high-status (vs. low-status ) job will strengthen the negative relationship between status as an immigrant and job suitability ratings. Hypothesis 6: Job suitability ratings will be lower for equally qualified immigrant (vs. non-immigrant) applicants applying for the same job; however, this effect will be qualified by an interaction between immigrant status and job status such that job suitability ratings for immigrant applicants will be lower for high-status positions. Weaker differences in job suitability ratings are expected for low-status positions (see Figure 4). The expectation above focuses on the differences between immigrants and non- immigrants, but this categorization fails to capture ethnic heterogeneity. As discussed earlier, perceptions and stereotypes of ethnic groups may contain great variation. For example, Gardner (1973) found that Canadians were frequently described using positive traits such as friendly, loyal, and clean; however, Latinos were often described more negatively as lazy, criminal, and lacking ambition (Chang & Kleiner, 2003; Cowan et al., 1997). Additionally, Asians represented model minority status but also were characterized by lack of sociability and exhibiting excessive competence (Lin et al., 2005). Job suitability ratings may then also differ depending on the 27 applicant’s ethnicity, such that certain groups are rated more positively or negatively than others. Based on this existing literature regarding perceptions of different ethnic groups (e.g., Chang & Kleiner, 2003; Gardner, 1973; Lin et al., 2005), this study specifically proposes that Canadian applicants will be perceived the most positive, followed sequentially by Chinese applicants and Mexican applicants. Other research examining the role of applicant ethnicity in conjunction with certain job characteristics (e.g., cognitive demand) has shown that hiring outcomes favor the ethnic majority group (Derous et al., 2012). When those in decision-making positions evaluate an applicant for a high-status position, biased beliefs may contribute to negative evaluations of ethnic-minority immigrant applicants. Consistent with expectations of job status and immigrant status jointly influenced perceived job suitability, the status level of the job may moderate the effect of ethnicity on perceived job suitability. Specifically, application to a high-status versus a low- status job is expected to strengthen the negative relationship between both Chinese and Mexican ethnicity and job suitability ratings. Hypothesis 7: Job suitability ratings will be lower for equally qualified Chinese and Mexican (vs. Canadian) applicants applying for the same job; however, this effect will be qualified by the interaction between ethnicity and job status such that job suitability ratings for Chinese and Mexican applicants will be lower for high-status positions. Weaker differences in job suitability ratings are expected for low-status positions (see Figure 5). Selection of individuals for a job often begins with a limited amount of information, such as a resume, cover letter, or online social media profile. In these scenarios, category-based processing of individuals may be become automatic (Brewer & Feinstein, 1999; Fiske et al., 28 1999) and assist the decision-maker in forming an overall impression of an applicant; however, when an applicant presents multiple categories to attend to (i.e., immigrant status and ethnicity), it may not always be clear which of those categories the decision-maker will focus on (Kulik et al., 2007). In this situation, Kulik et al. (2007) proposed that whichever category is activated the most and is the most salient in the decision-maker’s mind will guide that individual’s decision. Given the current emphasis being on immigration in the US (Jones, 2019) and the perpetuation of negative stereotypes towards immigrants (Lee & Fiske, 2006), it is expected that one’s status as an immigrant will be more salient than their ethnicity. Even though ethnicity is not the dominating category, it will still likely influence decision-makers’ perceptions by providing more information about a candidate, thus affecting the influence of immigrant status. Finally, because job status may have an important role in influencing decision-maker’s evaluations, it may serve as an additional moderating factor in predicting job suitability ratings. Hypothesis 8: There will be an interaction between applicant immigrant status and ethnicity on job suitability ratings for the same job, such that the job suitability ratings for the immigrant and non-immigrant groups will be moderated by ethnicity. Specifically, the negative influence of status as an immigrant on job suitability ratings will be stronger for both the Chinese and Mexican groups compared to the Canadian group. However, this joint effect of immigrant status and ethnicity will be qualified by job status, such that this effect will be stronger for high-status (vs. low-status) positions (see Figures 6 – 8). All hypotheses are summarized in Table 1. 29 STUDY 1 METHOD Study 1 examined the existing stereotypes that target different immigrant groups in the U.S. My aim was to determine the extent to which these stereotypes contain content that is explained by status as an immigrant, versus explained by ethnicity, as well as if these stereotypes could be explained by the interaction between immigrant status and ethnicity. To answer these questions, Study 1 employed a 2 (immigrant status: immigrant vs. non-immigrant) X 3 (ethnicity: Asian vs. Latinx vs. Middle Eastern) between-subjects factorial design. Although using these broad ethnic terms may not precisely capture the variation in stereotypes that could be associated with specific national origin, the purpose of this study was to differentiate immigrant status from ethnicity overall. I chose these specific ethnic groups to contrast the existing beliefs regarding model minority status (Asian) to a commonly perceived strong negative image (Middle Eastern) and a more recent and often negatively-charged ethnic identity (Latinx). An additional condition referring to immigrants overall (no ethnicity specified) was also included to collect information on how people perceive this general group, resulting in a total of seven between-subject conditions (see Table 2). Study 1 Pilot Prior to launching Study 1, a pilot study tested the clarity of the survey instructions and procedures. This pilot was conducted with a sample of undergraduate students enrolled in the Psychology department SONA system during the Summer 2020 semester. Before analyzing the data, responses were screened for quality and careless responding. In terms of duration to finish the survey, two responses appeared as outliers above the mean time to completion; however, a closer examination of these responses did not indicate cause to remove them from the final dataset as it was possible that the participants completed the survey in more than one sitting. 30 After temporarily filtering out these two outliers, there appeared to be no responses indicating speeding throughout the survey. These outliers were then reinserted into the dataset. Eleven responses were removed based on inconsistencies in participants’ demographic background and thus eligibility criteria. Four additional responses were removed due to failure to correctly answer both manipulation checks. Two additional responses were removed due to failure to correctly answer at least two of the three attention checks. The final pilot sample included 70 participants. The mean age was 19.78 years, 65.7% identified as female, and 72.9% identified as White. All participants were native-born US citizens, except for one who did not report their citizenship. 61.4% of participants correctly answered both manipulation checks and 92.9% of participants correctly answered all three attention checks. A one-way ANOVA assessed whether there were differences in the extent to which manipulation checks were correctly answered as a function of condition. Results indicated significant differences between conditions, F(6,62) = 8.37, p < .001, and an independent samples t-test showed that the three American conditions (Asian American, Latinx American, Middle Eastern American) had a greater number of manipulation checks failed than the four immigrant conditions, t(67) = -5.90, p < .001. Given that the number of attention checks failed did not differ as a function of condition, F(6 63) = 1.23, ns, I concluded that the instructions for the American conditions did not clearly state that the group was US-born. I therefore added the phrase, “Asian/Latinx/Middle Eastern Americans in this survey are defined as a group of people born in the United States who are of Asian/Latinx/Middle Eastern heritage” to the respective conditions for Study 1. Demographic screening questions were also added to the beginning of the survey to filter out ineligible respondents. No other changes were made. 31 Study 1 Participants This sample was recruited from the Psychology SONA pool. Participants answered pre- screening questions to confirm that they are 18 years or older and a native-born U.S. citizen (Appendix B). Although student samples often are seen as a limitation due to issues regarding the generalizability of results to other populations, previous impactful stereotype research (e.g., Lee & Fiske, 2006; Carlsson & Bjorklund, 2010; Fiske et al., 2002) has commonly relied on student samples and has produced comparable reliability estimates as compared to non-student samples (e.g., Fiske et al., 2002). Before conducting any analyses, several steps were taken to clean the data. First, I examined response times to identify speeding. After temporarily filtering out four outliers that were greater than two standard deviations above the mean duration, there appeared to be no responses indicating speeding. Consistent with the pilot, I added these four outliers back into the final dataset as I was not concerned with long response times. Nineteen responses were removed due to failure to correctly answer both manipulation checks. Nine additional responses were removed due to failure to correctly answer at least two of the three attention checks. This resulted in a final sample of 487 US-born participants. The average age was 19.39 years (SD = 2.33), 73.7% identified as female, and 68.1% identified as White, followed by 8.5% Black or African American, 5.7% South Asian, and 17.7% other racial backgrounds. Study 1 Procedure Before beginning the study, participants were presented with an informed consent form (Appendix C) and had option to choose whether or not to participate. Participants were told that the study will be asking for public perceptions of immigrant- and native-born groups in the U.S. 32 Participants were randomly assigned to one of seven conditions that remained consistent throughout the duration of the survey. First, participants were asked to provide two separate open-ended responses of what they believe other people in the U.S. think about the referenced group, as determined by the randomly assigned condition. Next, participants completed a series of measures pertaining to stereotypes and traits of the presented group, social-dominance orientation, demographics, and attention checks. Upon completion of the survey, participants were presented with an informative debriefing form (Appendix D) that described the purpose of and rationale for conducting the study, suggested references for relevant empirical articles, and researcher contact information. Study 1 Measures All measures below can be found in Appendix B. All participants completed every measure based on their randomly assigned social group unless otherwise specified. Qualitative Stereotype Responses Negative (Positive) Stereotypes – Paragraph. Participants were first asked to describe what they believe other people in the U.S. think about the referenced group in three to four sentences, as determined by the randomly assigned condition. These responses were the used to develop a series of dummy-coded variables that reflected the content in the response. All responses were dummy-coded by two undergraduate research assistants based on the content discussed in the response (e.g., presence of extraversion words) and the valence (positive or negative) of applicable categories (e.g., intelligence – positive, intelligence – negative). Coders were trained on the coding procedure and provided with a codebook (see Appendix E) to use when completing this work. The coders completed their ratings independently and the majority 33 of discrepancies were resolved during a meeting with the author. Initial inter-rater agreement across all coding themes used for the paragraph response ranged from 68.1% agreement (theme: warmth – negative) to 98.5% agreement (theme: COVID-19). After meeting, agreement on the paragraph responses ranged from 79.0% (theme: other words – negative) to 99.8%. All remaining discrepancies were resolved by the author. The total number of negative valence codes for a response was then calculated to create a new measure, Negative Stereotypes – Paragraph (Negative Stereotypes – P; α = .75 ). This procedure was repeated for the positive valence codes, labeled Positive Stereotypes – Paragraph (Positive Stereotypes – P; α = .74). The decision to include content on the negative or positive paragraph measure was based on categorization of different stereotypes of ethnic groups in prior literature (e.g., Reyna et al., 2013). Content that did not appear to fit within Negative or Positive Stereotypes – P was coded but was not used in tests of the hypotheses. All codes used are included in Table 5, along with the frequencies of each of the themes. Negative (Positive) Stereotypes – List. Next, participants provided up to ten adjectives or phrases that they believed other people in the U.S. would use to describe their referenced group. The top five most frequently cited words or phrases for each group are presented in Table 7. All responses were dummy-coded by the same undergraduate research assistants based on the content (e.g., extraversion) and the valence (positive or negative) of applicable categories (e.g., intelligence – positive, intelligence – negative). Initial agreement for the entire list of stereotype words was 65.0%. After meeting to resolve discrepancies, agreement on the stereotype words list increased to 86.0%. All remaining discrepancies were resolved by the author. The same process of creating the Negative and Positive Stereotypes – Paragraph responses was then applied to these adjectives, such that the sum of the negative and positive 34 valence words were calculated to create the two measures. However, because the number of adjectives provided by the participants varied, each sum was converted into a proportion. This process resulted in the measures Negative Stereotypes – List (Negative Stereotypes – L; α = .74) and Positive Stereotypes – List (Positive Stereotypes – L; α = .75). Overall, this qualitative approach to stereotype ratings is consistent with the method used by Devine (1989), who claimed that free response tasks can provide a more sensitive test of participants’ knowledge of the stereotype as compared to traditional adjective checklists (e.g., Katz & Braly, 1933). Immigrant Stereotypes. The extent to which certain traits are believed to be characteristic of a referenced immigrant vs. non-immigrant ethnic group was assessed using two measures. The first measure was an adapted version of the 47-item Trait Ratings measure by Reyna et al. (2013) that has been used to assess immigrant stereotypes. Sample traits include “hardworking,” “religious,” “trustworthy,” and “victims of discrimination.” Each trait was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely; α = .78). Racial Stereotypes. The extent to which certain traits are believed to be characteristic of a referenced racial group was assessed using a series of traits representing stereotypes from an adapted version of the Stereotype Adjective Assessment measure by Katz and Braly (1933). The original series of traits was modified by replacing words determined to be irrelevant for the purpose of this study (e.g., musical, artistic) with other words determined to be relevant and not currently in a proposed scale (e.g., illegal, exotic). Each trait was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely; α = .62). 35 Behavioral Stereotypes. The extent to which certain behaviors are believed to be characteristic of a referenced immigrant ethnic group vs. non-immigrant ethnic group was assessed using an adapted version of the 25-item Scale of Anti-Asian American Stereotypes developed by Lin et al. (2005). A sample behavioral competence (α = .90) item is “Asian Americans seem to be striving to become number one.” A sample behavioral sociability (α = .91) item is “Most Asian Americans function well in social situations.” Each item was modified to reference the social group designated by choice of one of seven randomly assigned conditions referenced earlier. Therefore, an example of the adapted item is “People of Hispanic/Latinx heritage seem to be striving to become number one.” Each item was measured on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Warmth and Competence. The extent to which the referenced group is believed to possess the traits of warmth and competence was assessed using the warmth and competence scales by Fiske et al. (2002) measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). Sample competence (α = .85) items include “confident” and “intelligent.” Sample warmth (α = .91) items include “warm” and “sincere.” Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). The extent to which participants prefer systems of group-based or hierarchical dominance was assessed using the 16-item Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) – 7 scale by Ho et al. (2015; α = .89 to .95 ) measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly oppose, 7 = strongly favor). A sample item for the pro-trait dominance subscale (α = .83) is “Some groups of people must be kept in their place.” A sample item for the con-trait dominance subscale (α = .68) is “No one group should dominate society.” A sample item for the pro-trait anti-egalitarianism subscale (α = .84) is “We should not push for group 36 equality.” A sample item for the con-trait anti-egalitarianism subscale (α = .87) is “Group equality should be our ideal.” Demographics. Participants reported their gender, age, race/ethnicity, year in school, political affiliation, employment status, and individual and family immigration history. For race,, participants were instructed to select all options that apply; however, race was transformed into a series of dummy-coded variables for further analysis. Note that although this variable is referred to as “race,” response options included both racial and ethnic groups. For family immigration status, participants were instructed to select the option that best described the immigration status of their mother and father individually. This information was transformed into a dummy-coded variable for further analysis (0 = mother and father are both native-born U.S. citizens, 1 = mother and/or father is not a native-born U.S. citizen). Manipulation and Attention Checks. Participants indicated the group they were asked to answer questions about at the end of the survey. Throughout the survey, they were also asked random response questions (e.g., Please select ‘strongly disagree’) among the scale items to indicate that they were paying attention to the material. Participants that incorrectly answered both manipulation checks or more than one attention check were excluded from analyses. Study 1 Exploratory Measures Status and Competition. The extent to which the referenced group is believed to have power or status was assessed using the status and competition scales by Fiske et al. (2002), measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). A sample status (α = .93) item is “How prestigious are the jobs typically achieved by members of this group?”. A sample 37 competition (α = .93) item is “The more power members of this group have, the less power people like me are likely to have.”. Qualitative Immigrant Definition. To assess how participants interpret and define the word “immigrant” in their own words, they were asked at the end of the survey to respond to the following question: “Please tell us in 1-2 sentences how you would define the word "immigrant." There are no right or wrong answers.” Two undergraduate research assistants coded these responses independently based on a codebook developed by the author and the majority discrepancies were resolved during a meeting with the author. Initial inter-rater agreement for the different codes ranged from 76.9% (code: purpose of migration) to 98.8% (recency of migration). After meeting, agreement ranged from 98.2% to 100%. All remaining discrepancies were resolved by the author. Immigrant Classification Knowledge & Knowledge Rating. To assess participants’ knowledge of and familiarity with the current system to classify immigrant groups in the US, they were first asked at the end of the survey to respond to the following question: “Please indicate the extent to which you are familiar with the U.S. classification system for immigrants (e.g., types of visas).” Two undergraduate research assistants coded these responses and the initial inter-rater agreement for the different codes ranged from 44.5% (code: migration/visa purpose) to 99.3% (code: other SES). The majority of discrepancies were resolved during a meeting with the author. After meeting, agreement ranged from 77.0% to 99.8%. All remaining discrepancies were resolved by the author. Frequencies of each theme coded are presented in Table 15. As another measure, participants also provided their level of familiarity with the U.S. classification system on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all familiar, 5 = extremely familiar). 38 STUDY 1 RESULTS A two-way MANOVA assessed whether there were differences in the extent to which the manipulation checks were correctly answered as a function of immigrant and ethnic condition. Results indicated significant differences in the extent to which the immigrant manipulation check was answered correctly, F(6,468) = 19.25, p < .001, as well as between the extent to which the ethnic manipulation check was answered correctly, F(6,468) = 22.01, p < .001. A post-hoc Tukey test for the immigrant check showed that the number of checks failed was greater for the three American conditions as compared to the four immigrant conditions. The results of the ethnicity manipulation check also showed that only the single immigrant condition (no ethnicity specified) had a significantly lower number of checks answered correctly compared to the remaining six conditions. 71.5% of participants correctly answered both manipulation checks and 89.3% of participants correctly answered all three attention checks. Thus, no other data were excluded for the analyses. Scales, composite scores, and sub-scores were then computed for the quantitative data by reverse-coding the appropriate items and calculating the average of the combined scale items. Given the similarity of the immigrant stereotype and racial stereotype scales’ content, an EFA with principal axis factoring and varimax rotation was conducted to determine the underlying factor structure of these measures when combined. This resulted in nine underlying factors with eigenvalues greater than one; however not all factors were clearly interpretable. Because the scree plot suggested the largest proportion of variance could be attributed to only one factor (19.16% of total variance explained) and the proportion of variance for the second factor substantially decreased (6.72% of total variance explained), these two measures were assumed to measure the same underlying content and were thus combined into one stereotype scale. After 39 combining these scales, I created a subscale for positively-valanced traits, Positive Stereotypes – Scale, and negatively-valanced traits, Negative Stereotypes – Scale, for further analysis. These scales are presented in Table 4. Consistent with my decision for the qualitative stereotype measures, items that did not fit within Negative or Positive Stereotypes – Scale measures were not used in tests of the hypotheses but are included for informational purposes. Table 3 includes the scale reliability, means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all measures. As seen in Table 3, the three negative stereotype measures (Negative Stereotypes – Paragraph, List, Scale) were negatively correlated with competence, warmth, and status. Similarly, the three positive stereotype measures (Positive Stereotypes – Paragraph, List, Scale) were positively correlated with ratings of competence, warmth, and status. As expected, competence and behavioral competence were significantly and positively correlated, but an EFA with principal axis factoring and varimax rotation resulted in a clear two- factor structure that differentiated the scales. Although SDO scores were not significantly correlated with each of the outcomes as was expected, the SDO Pro-Trait Dominance subscale was significantly and positively correlated with Behavioral Competence and Behavioral Sociability. Thus, only the SDO Pro-Trait Dominance subscale was included as a covariate in further analyses of these two outcomes. A two-way MANOVA examined the omnibus effect of immigrant status and ethnicity on (1) the following qualitative DVs: Negative Stereotypes – Paragraph, Negative Stereotypes – List, and (2) the following quantitative DVs: Negative Stereotypes – Scale, competence, warmth, behavioral competence, and behavioral sociability. After filtering out participants in the Immigrant – No Ethnicity condition as this condition was included for exploratory purposes only, results indicated that immigrant status had a significant effect only on the two qualitative 40 outcomes, F(1,394) = 8.15, p < .01 for negative stereotypes – Scale; F(1,394) = 11.52, p < .01 for negative stereotypes – List. No significant effects of immigrant status were observed for the remaining quantitative outcomes, although results for the competence and behavioral sociability outcomes approached significance, F(1,394) = 3.53, p = .06 and F(1,394) = 3.18, p = .08, respectively. Next, results indicated that ethnicity had a significant effect on all seven of the outcomes. F(2,394) values ranged from 22.10 for warmth to 50.47 to behavioral sociability, with all p values < .001. Lastly, there were no significant interactions between immigrant status and ethnicity. F(2,394) values ranged from .002, ns for negative stereotypes – Scale to 1.55, ns for warmth. Therefore, this preliminary MANOVA showed that Hypothesis 3, which proposed a significant interaction between immigrant status and ethnicity on negative stereotype content, was not supported and was not further examined. Based on these findings, I continued to test hypotheses 1 and 2 with a series of t-tests and one-way ANOVAs with planned contrasts. Note that all results remained unchanged when including participant race and parental background (i.e., at least one parent is an immigrant) as covariates. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 8. Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 stated that stereotypes of immigrant groups will be more negative than stereotypes of non-immigrant groups. Because the previous MANOVA indicated significant effects of immigrant status only on the two qualitative outcomes, only those results were examined further and reported. The first t-test with immigrant status as the predictor indicated that negative stereotypes – Paragraph was significantly higher for immigrants compared to non- immigrants, t(408) = 2.71, p < .01, d = .27. Similarly, the second t-test with immigrant status as the predictor indicated that negative stereotypes – List was significantly higher for immigrants 41 compared to non-immigrants, t(401) = 3.23, p < .01, d = .32. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 stated that stereotypes of the Latinx and Middle Eastern ethnic groups will be more negative than stereotypes of the Asian group. Weaker differences in use of negative stereotypes were expected between the Latinx and Middle Eastern groups. Because the previous MANOVA showed a significant effect of ethnicity on all seven of the outcome variables, a series of one-way ANOVAs with planned contrasts tested the effect of ethnicity on each of the outcome variables separately. The first ANOVA testing the effect of ethnicity on negative stereotypes – Paragraph indicated that the homogeneity of variance assumption had been violated, Levene statistic = 6.99, p < .01. However, analyses proceeded as planned given that ANOVA is robust to heterogeneity of variance when the group sizes are relatively equal, as they are in this case. The following results are based on values that do not assume equal variances. Results of all planned contrasts and effect sizes for ethnicity are presented in Table 9. The first contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Latinx group on negative Stereotypes – Paragraph. This contrast resulted in a t(226) = 9.33, p < .001, such that relative to the Asian group, the Latinx group had more negative stereotype themes, d = 1.14. The second contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(258) = 10.60, p < .001, such that relative to the Asian group, the Middle Eastern group had more negative stereotype themes, d = 1.26. The last contrast examined whether the Latinx group different from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(266) = .27, ns. As expected, these two 42 groups demonstrated a weaker and nonsignificant difference in negative stereotype themes, d = .03, than when compared to the Asian group. The second ANOVA testing the effect of ethnicity negative stereotypes – List indicated that the homogeneity of variance assumption had been violated, Levene statistic = 35.33, p < .001. The following results are based on values that do not assume equal variances. The first contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Latinx group in the proportion of negative stereotypes. This contrast resulted in a t(193) = 8.21, p < .001, such that relative to the Asian group, the Latinx group had a greater proportion of negative stereotypes, d = 1.01. The second contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(214) = 11.63, p < .001, such that relative to the Asian group, the Middle Eastern group had a greater proportion of negative stereotypes, d = 1.38. The last contrast examined whether the Latinx group different from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(268) = 2.18, p < .05. As expected, these two groups demonstrated a weaker although still significant difference in negative stereotypes – List, d = .26, than when compared to the Asian group, such that the Middle Eastern group was rated slightly higher on negative stereotypes. The third ANOVA testing the effect of ethnicity on negative stereotypes – Scale indicated that the homogeneity of variance assumption had been violated, Levene statistic = 12.29, p < .001. The following results are based on values that do not assume equal variances. The first contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Latinx group in negative stereotype use. This contrast resulted in a t(226) = 6.525, p < .001, such that relative to the Asian group, the Latinx group had higher scores on the negative stereotypes scale, d = .80. The second contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Middle Eastern group. This 43 contrast resulted in a t(242) = 11.73, p < .001, such that relative to the Asian group, the Middle Eastern group had higher negative stereotypes – Scale scores, d = 1.42. The last contrast examined whether the Latinx group different from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(272) = 4.27, p < .001. As expected, these two groups demonstrated a weaker although still significant difference in negative stereotype content, d = .52, than when compared to the Asian group, such that the Middle Eastern group was rated slightly higher on negative stereotypes. The fourth ANOVA tested the effect of ethnicity on competence. The first contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Latinx group in competence. This contrast resulted in a t(400) = -10.45, p < .001, such that relative to the Asian group, the Latinx group had lower competence scores, d = 1.34. The second contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(400) = -7.94, p < .001, such that relative to the Asian group, the Middle Eastern group had lower competence scores, d = 1.02. The last contrast examined whether the Latinx group different from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(400) = 2.70, p < .01. As expected, these two groups demonstrated a weaker although still significant difference in competence, d = .31, than when compared to the Asian group, such that the Middle Eastern group was rated slightly higher on competence. The fifth ANOVA tested the effect of ethnicity on warmth. The first contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Latinx group in warmth. This contrast resulted in a t(400) = -.54, ns such that the Asian group had similar warmth scores as the Latinx group, d = .07. The second contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(400) = -5.98, p < .001, such that relative to the Asian group, 44 the Middle Eastern group had lower warmth scores, d = .74. The last contrast examined whether the Latinx group different from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(400) = - 5.48, p < .001. Contrary to expectations, these two groups demonstrated a significant difference in warmth, d = .62, that was larger than the difference between the Asian and Latinx groups. Results of this contrast showed that the Latinx group was rated higher on warmth than the Middle Eastern group. The sixth ANOVA tested the effect of ethnicity on behavioral competence. The first contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Latinx group in behavioral competence. This contrast resulted in a t(398) = 11.37, p < .001, such that the Asian group had higher competence scores than the Latinx group, d = 1.43. The second contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(398) = 5.24, p < .001, such that the Asian group had higher competence scores than the Middle Eastern group, d = .61. The last contrast examined whether the Latinx group different from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(398) = 6.36, p < .001. Contrary to expectations, these two groups demonstrated a significant difference in behavioral competence, d = .81, that was larger than the difference between the Asian and Middle Eastern groups. Results of this contrast showed that the Middle Eastern group was rated higher on behavioral competence than the Latinx group. The seventh ANOVA tested the effect of ethnicity on behavioral sociability. The first contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Latinx group in behavioral sociability. This contrast resulted in a t(398) = -11.65, p < .001, such that the Asian group had higher sociability scores than the Latinx group, d = 1.50. The second contrast examined whether the Asian group differed from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(398) = - 45 4.75, p < .001, such that the Asian group had higher sociability scores than the Middle Eastern group, d = .53. The last contrast examined whether the Latinx group different from the Middle Eastern group. This contrast resulted in a t(398) = 7.15, p < .001. Contrary to expectations, these two groups demonstrated a significant difference in behavioral competence, d = .84, that was larger than the difference between the Asian and Middle Eastern groups. Results of this contrast showed that the Middle Eastern group was rated higher than the Latinx group on behavioral sociability. 46 STUDY 1 EXPLORATORY RESULTS Participant Race and Parental Immigration Status as Moderators Because participants’ race and parental immigration status did not significantly affect the results of the hypothesis tests when included as covariates, I examined whether they instead served as moderators. Although participants were instructed to respond based on how they believed other people think of the group presented to them, it is possible that belonging to an ethnic minority group or having a parent that immigrated to the U.S. would influence their overall perception or experience with minority group stereotypes. I ran a series of regressions with each of the seven dependent variables for hypotheses 1 and 2 to examine the effects between immigrant status and ethnicity, respectively, and their interactions with these participant demographic variables. For Hypothesis 1, there were no significant interactions between immigrant status and participants’ race (dummy coded for each race) or parental background (dummy coded based on if at least one parent was not from the U.S.). For Hypothesis 2, there was a significant interaction between Latinx ethnicity and parental background, b = -.73, β = -.16, p < .05, 95% CI = [-1.39, - .67], as well as Asian ethnicity and parental background, b = .73, β = .18, p < .05, 95% CI = [.07, 1.39], when predicting behavioral competence. Figure 9 shows that participants with at least one non-native parent rated the Latinx group as significantly lower on behavioral competence, b = - 1.19, p < .05, than the non-Latinx group. However, ratings of the Latinx group did not differ between individuals with or without a non-native parent. In contrast, Figure 10 shows that participants with at least one non-native parent rated the Asian group as significantly higher on behavioral competence, b = 1.19, p < .05, than the non-Asian group. Ratings of the non-Asian group did not differ between individuals with or without a non-native parent. Despite these 47 findings, there was little evidence to indicate that participants’ race or parental background significantly influenced the effect of immigrant status or ethnicity. Positive Stereotypes The second set of exploratory analyses examined the extent to which each of the different groups were described with positive stereotypes using the number of positive themes present in the perceptions of social group qualitative response (Positive Stereotypes – Paragraph), proportion of positive stereotype words out of all stereotype words provided in the qualitative responses (Positive Stereotypes – List), and positive stereotypes from the combined immigrant and racial stereotype scale (Positive Stereotypes – Scale). Mirroring Hypothesis analyses, a two- way MANOVA with immigrant status and ethnicity as predictors with participant race as a covariate assessed overall differences in these three outcomes. Frequencies of each of the themes coded in the paragraph qualitative response are included in Table 5. Frequencies of the themes present in the paragraph responses are included in Table 6. Means and standard deviations for the three positive stereotype measures (Positive Stereotypes – Paragraph, List, Scale) are presented in Table 11. Note that Table 11 includes means and standard deviations when both including and excluding the Immigrant - No Ethnicity condition. Results indicated that immigrant status did not have a significant effect on any of these outcomes, F(1,462) ranged from .11 to 2.02, ns. Next, results indicated that ethnicity had a significant effect on all three outcomes. F(3,462) values ranged from 38.03 for Positive Stereotypes – List to 57.71 for Positive Stereotypes – Paragraph, with all p values < .001. Lastly, a significant interaction between immigrant status and ethnicity was observed for Positive Stereotypes – Scale, F(2,462) = 3.76, p < .05. Note that this interaction remained significant after excluding the No Ethnicity condition, F(2,390) = 4.22, p < .05. A two-way ANOVA with a post- 48 hoc Tukey test followed up these results. Results of the pairwise comparisons are presented in Table 12. Results indicated that the Asian group differed from the other three groups on all three outcomes, with the Asian group rated as significantly higher on positive stereotypes – P (d Latinx = 1.28, d Middle Eastern = 1.40, d No Ethnicity = 1.12), positive stereotypes – L (d Latinx = .83, d Middle Eastern = 1.34, d No Ethnicity = .75) and positive stereotypes – S (d Latinx = 1.14, d Middle Eastern = 1.32, d No Ethnicity = 1.33). Next, the Latinx and Middle Eastern groups significantly differed from each other on the proportion of positive stereotype words provided, such that the Latinx group was described with a greater proportion of positive stereotypes than the Middle Eastern group, d = .45. However, these two groups were similar on the other two positive stereotypes outcomes. Lastly, the no ethnicity condition also differed from the Middle Eastern group on the proportion of positive stereotype words provided, such that the proportion of positive words was higher for the no ethnicity condition, d = .55. Next, the significant interaction between immigrant status and ethnicity on positive stereotypes – Scale was broken down using two simple main effects. Pairwise comparisons are presented in Table 13. Given that the no ethnicity condition was only available for the immigrant group and this interaction remained significant without the no ethnicity condition included in the analyses, this condition was excluded. For the first main effect, the effect of ethnicity was assessed for non-immigrants. This yielded an F(2,204) = 22.13, p < .001, η2 = .18, and a post-hoc Tukey test indicated that the Asian group was rated as significantly higher on positive stereotypes than either the Latinx group, d = .78, or the Middle Eastern group, d = 1.19. The Latinx and Middle Eastern group did not significantly differ from each other, d = .32. For the second main effect, the effect of ethnicity was assessed for immigrants. Results yielded an F(2,194) = 40.68, p < .001, η2 = .30, and a post-hoc Tukey test again indicated that the Asian 49 group was rated as significantly higher on positive stereotypes than the Latinx group, d = 1.64, or Middle Eastern group, d = 1.48. Although the Latinx and Middle Eastern group did not significantly differ from each other as also found in the non-immigrant sample, this mean difference was smaller, d = .01. Qualitative Definition and Knowledge & Knowledge Rating Participants were asked at the end of the survey to respond to the following three questions: (1) “Please tell us in 1-2 sentences how you would define the word "immigrant." There are no right or wrong answers.” (Definition, Free Response), (2) “Please indicate the extent to which you are familiar with the U.S. classification system for immigrants (e.g., types of visas).” (Knowledge Rating), and (3) “To the best of your knowledge, please explain in at least one sentence how immigrant groups can be classified or described (e.g., types of visas).” (Knowledge, Free Response). Descriptive statistics for the different themes in the free response questions as well as participants’ self-ratings of their immigrant knowledge are found in Table 14 (Definition) and Table 15 (Knowledge). In terms of how participants defined the word immigrant, the majority of responses (369 out of 471 responses) indicated that an immigrant was someone who was born or coming from a different country than that currently residing. The next most frequent characteristic mentioned (n = 97) was being in pursuit of better life conditions or opportunities (e.g., “in hopes of a better life). Following these categories were references to a specific purpose for migrating (e.g., work or family; n = 38) and seeking out citizenship (n = 37). In terms of participants’ knowledge of how immigrant groups are classified (e.g., types of visas), the most frequent characteristic mentioned was migration/visa purpose (199 out of 462 responses). Out of these 199 responses, the majority (n = 140) referenced multiple visa categories (e.g., visas exist for employment and education). The second and third most common 50 descriptor was citizenship (n = 80) and duration of stay associated with a visa (n = 75), respectively. The fourth most common descriptor was documentation status (documented or undocumented; n = 58). Although a handful of participants discussed specific visas by name and purpose (e.g., F-1 visa for students), the average self-reported rating for knowledge of how immigrants could be classified was 2.09 on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all familiar, 5 = extremely familiar), indicating relatively little knowledge about this subject. However, individuals who reported having at least one parent that was not born in the US reported significantly higher knowledge (M = 2.52, SD = .87) than individuals with US-born parents (M = 2.01, SD = 1.07, d = .57). Because these questions were included for exploratory purposes, a two-way MANOVA with immigrant status and ethnicity (excluding the No Ethnicity condition) as the IVs tested for significant differences in the frequencies of the themes used to classify each qualitative response as well as the knowledge rating. Significant differences as a function of ethnicity emerged for the extent to which participants defined immigrants in terms of improving their life conditions, F(2,386) = 6.15, p < .01. A post-hoc Tukey test showed that participants in the Asian condition (M = .16, SD = .37) used this description to a lesser degree than participants in the Latinx condition (M = .35, SD = .48, d = .44). Results also indicated that participants in an immigrant condition (M = 1.99, SD = .85) rated their knowledge as significantly lower than participants in the non-immigrant condition (M = 2.19, SD = .97, d = 1.01). Status and Competition The last set of exploratory analyses examined the roles of perceived group status and competition. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 16. A two-way MANOVA with SDO con-trait dominance (grand-mean centered) and having a non-native born parent 51 included as covariates tested whether immigrant status and ethnicity predicted status or competition. Results indicated that ethnicity was a significant predictor of status, F(2,387) = 170.77, p < .001, and competition, F(2,387) = 3.73, p < .05. Neither immigrant status nor the interaction of immigrant status and ethnicity were significant predictors of either outcome. As seen in Table 16, a post-hoc Tukey test showed that Asians were rated as significantly higher on status than either the Latinx, d = 2.52, or Middle Eastern group, d = 1.40. Further, the Middle Eastern group was rated as significantly higher in status than the Latinx group d = .84. For competition, the Middle Eastern group was rated as significantly higher than the Asian group, d = .32, but similar to the Latinx group, d = .12. The Latinx group was also rated as similar to the Asian group in competition, d = .18. After examining the role of immigrant status and ethnicity in predicting status and competition, I tested whether status and competition predicted negative and positive stereotypes – Paragraph/List/Scale, competence, warmth, behavioral competence, and behavioral sociability. After regressing each individual outcome on only status and competition, both predictors were significant. Status negatively predicated negative stereotypes – Paragraph/List/Scale (β = -.39 to -.31, p < .001) and positively predicted positive stereotypes – Paragraph / List / Scale (β = .39 to .58, p < .001), competence (β = .62, p < .001), warmth (β = .25, p < .001), behavioral competence (β = .49, p < .001), and behavioral sociability (β = .31, p < .001). Competition positively predicted negative stereotypes – Paragraph / List / Scale (β = .11 to .47, p < .001), behavioral competence (β = .40, p < .001), behavioral sociability (β = .30, p < .001), and negatively predicted positive stereotypes – List/Scale (β = -.26 to -.16, p < .01), competence (β = -.16, p < .001), and warmth (β = -.26, p < .001). Additionally, significant interactions appeared between status and competition when predicting negative stereotype content – Scale , positive 52 stereotypes – Paragraph/List/Scale, competence, warmth, behavioral competence, and behavioral sociability. Before examining these interactions further, I added more steps to each model to consider how status, competition, immigrant status, and ethnicity jointly predict each outcome. For negative stereotype content – Paragraph, no significant interactions emerged and the effects of status and competition both became nonsignificant. There were also no significant interactions when predicting positive stereotype content – List, and the effect of status became nonsignificant while competition remained a significant negative predictor. Significant interactions, however, appeared when predicting the remaining outcomes. Overall, the interaction effects between ethnicity and status were significant predictors in the majority of these final models (Table 17). The Latinx by status interaction, as well as the Middle Eastern by Status interaction, negatively predicted negative stereotype content – List, behavioral competence, and behavioral sociability, and positively predicted positive stereotype content – Scale and warmth. The Latinx by status interaction also was a negative predictor of negative stereotype content – Scale. There were also significant interaction effects between competition and the other included predictors. First, the immigrant status by competition interaction was a significant negative predictor of competence (Table 17). Furthermore, the status by competition interaction and Latinx by competition interaction negatively predicted positive stereotype content – Paragraph (Table 17). Although each of these interactions were significant predictors for a number of outcomes, several were further qualified by three-way interactions. First the three-way interaction between Latinx, status, and competition was a significant positive predictor of negative stereotype content – Scale. Figure 11 first shows that for the non- Latinx group, being perceived as high vs. low status resulted in less negative stereotypes – Scale 53 regardless of whether the group was seen as low or high competition. When seen as low competition, there was a negative effect of status, b = -.24, p < .01, and although this was also true when the group was seen as high competition, the negative effect was stronger, b = -.47, p < .001. Additionally, there was a positive overall effect of competition on negative stereotypes – Scale. When the group was seen as low status, negative stereotypes – Scale increased with high competition, b = .39, p < .001. When the group was seen as high status, negative stereotypes – Scale also increased with high competition, but this effect was weaker, b = .20, p < .01. For the Latinx group, the only significant difference was the effect of competition at different levels of status. When the group was seen as high status, competition had a significant positive effect on negative stereotypes – Scale, b = .41, p < .001. Second, the three-way interaction between immigrant status, status, and competition was a positive predictor of positive stereotype content – Paragraph. For positive stereotype content – Paragraph, Figure 12 shows that for non-immigrants, there was a significant positive effect of status only when the group was seen as low in competition, b = .34, p < .05. Further, there was a significant negative effect of competition that only applied when groups were seen as high in status, b = -.18, p < .05. For immigrants, there was also a significant positive effect of status for groups seen as low in competition, b = .40, p < .05; however, for groups seen as high in competition, the effect of status became positive although not statistically significant. For immigrants, there was also no significant differences in the effect of competition across status levels. This three-way interaction of immigrant status, status, and competition was also a significant negative predictor of behavioral sociability. Figure 13 first shows that for the non- immigrant group, there was a significant difference in the effect of competition between groups that were perceived as either low or high in status. For only those high in status, high levels of 54 competition significantly increased ratings of behavioral sociability, b = .34, p < .001. This was also true for the immigrant group. For only those high in status, there was a significant positive effect of competition on behavioral sociability, b = .18, p < .05. Note that although the effect size of competition for those low in status was larger than for those high in status, it was not statistically significant, b = .39, ns. Further, for immigrants, the effect of status was significant only when the group was seen as posing low competition, b = .36, p < .05. Lastly, there were also two significant four-way interactions that emerged when predicting competence and behavioral sociability. The first four-way interaction appeared for immigrant status, Latinx ethnicity, status, and competition, which together negatively predicted competence. As seen in Figure 14, for the non-immigrant non-Latinx group, there was a significant positive effect of status both when the group was seen as low, b = .45, p < .001, and high, b = .46, p < .001, competition. This was also true for the non-immigrant Latinx group, although the effects were stronger, b = .56, p < .001 for low competition, b = .58, p <.001 for high competition. Further, there was also a significant difference in the effect of competition at different levels of status. Only when the group was seen as low in status was there was a significant negative effect of competition on competence, b = 0.20, p < .05. For the immigrant non-Latinx group, there was a significant positive effect of status both when the group was seen as low, b = .45, p < .001, and high, b = .58, p < .001, in competition. There was also a significant negative effect of competition on competence but only when the group was seen as low in status, b = .16, p < .01. For the immigrant Latinx group, the positive effect of status was only significant when the group was seen as low in competition, b = .37, p < .05. Further, there was a negative effect of competition that was only significant when the group was seen as high in status, b = - .31, p < .01. 55 The second four-way interaction included immigrant status, Latinx ethnicity, status, and competition, which together positively predicted behavioral sociability and is presented in Figure 15. For the non-immigrant non-Latinx group, there was a significant positive effect of competition on sociability only when the group was high in status, b = .24, p < .05. This same finding also emerged for the non-immigrant Latinx group, b = .28, p < .05. For the immigrant non-Latinx group, the effect of status was positive and significant only when the group was seen as presenting low competition, b = .28, p < .01. Also, the effect of competition for this group was positive and significant only when the group was seen as low in status, b = .39, p < .001. Lastly for the immigrant Latinx group, there were no significant differences in the effects of status or competition. Because these results included dummy-coded predictors for the Latinx and Middle Eastern groups, I also ran these exact models again instead with the dummy-coded variables for Asian and Middle Eastern groups. There were no significant interactions between the Asian variable and other variables when predicting negative stereotypes – Paragraph or negative stereotypes – List. However, the interaction between Asian ethnicity and status was a significant predictor of multiple outcomes. Specifically, the Asian by status interaction positively predicted negative stereotypes – Scale, b = .22, β = .18, p < .05, 95% CI = [.02, .42], competence, b = .36, β = .24, p < .01, 95% CI = [.10, .62], and behavioral sociability, b = .31, β = .22, p < .05, 95% CI = [.05, .57], and negatively predicted positive stereotypes – S, b = -.30, β = -.28, p < .001, 95% CI = [-.46, -.14], and warmth, b = -.64, β = 0-.45, p < .01, 95% CI = [-.90, -.38]. Additionally, the Asian by competition interaction significantly and positively predicted positive stereotypes – Paragraph, b = .21, β = .22, p < .05, 95% CI = [-.01, .42]. In comparison to the interaction effects for the Latinx and Middle Eastern groups, this series of interactions demonstrate the generally 56 positive association with the Asian identity (the only exception being warmth), especially when seen as high in status. Such results are consistent with the model minority perspective, which was influential in the development of my hypotheses. The was also a significant four-way interaction of immigrant status, Asian ethnicity, status, and competition that positively predicted competence, b = .27, β = .22, p < .04, 95% CI = [.01, .52]. As seen in Figure 16, for the non-immigrant non-Asian group there was a significant positive effect of status regardless of whether the group was seen as presenting low, b = .41, p < .001, or high, b = .41, p < .001, competition. There was also a significant negative effect of competition regardless of if the group was seen as low, b = -.15 p < .05, or high, b = -.15, p < .05, in status. For the non-immigrant Asian group, however, there was only a significant effect of status on competence. This effect applied both when there was low, b = .52, p < .01, and high, b = .54, p < .001, competition. For the immigrant non-Asian group, there was a significant positive effect of status when the group was seen as low, b = .48, p < .001, and high, b = .32, p < .01, in competition. There was also a significant negative effect of competition both when the group was seen as low, b = -.15, p < .05, and high, b = -.27, p < .001, in status. Like the non-immigrant Asian group, the immigrant Asian group showed a significant effect of status on competence only when there was high competition, b = .50, p < .01. In terms of interpretation, these results supplement the previous two-way interaction effects by demonstrating that Asian ethnicity may serve as a buffer when individuals develop stereotypes about immigrant groups. Furthermore, the perception of Asian individuals’ educational attainment and overall socioeconomic success can contribute to this group’s perceived competence. In contrast, this four-way interaction also negatively predicted behavioral sociability, b = -.33, β = -.24, p < .05, 95% CI = [-.64, -.01]. According to Figure 17, for the non-immigrant non- 57 Asian group, there was a positive effect of competition on sociability that was significant only when the group was seen as low in status, b = .20, p < .05. For the non-immigrant Asian group, a significant positive effect of competition was found regardless of whether the group was low, b = .29, p < .05, or high, b = .37, p < .01, in status. This positive effect of competition when the group was seen as low, b = .22, p < .01, or high, b = .21, p < .05, in status also appeared for the immigrant non-Asian group. Lastly, for the immigrant Asian group, there was a positive effect of competition that was significant only when the group was seen as low in status, b = .25, p < .05. Overall, these findings may suggest that competition is a proxy for competence, such that those with higher competence would pose greater competition for resources such as employment or housing opportunities. These individuals that pose higher competition, if assumed to also demonstrate competence, may then automatically be seen as higher in behavioral sociability. However, this interpretation conflicts with the propositions of realistic group conflict theory and integrated threat theory, which both identify intergroup conflict and competition as predictors of negative stereotypes. Furthermore, it is less clear as to why this effect of competition on sociability was significant regardless of status for only the non-immigrant Asian group and immigrant non-Asian group. Lastly, as is true with all interactions discussed, the detected effects of the variables on one another may operate in a different direction then assumed, which then ultimately affects the interpretation of such relationship. 58 STUDY 1 DISCUSSION Stereotypes are powerful beliefs that can damage the reputation and well-being of individuals and the social groups with which those individuals identify. Regardless of the intent behind them, the groups they are directed toward, or the degree to which a person agrees or disagrees with them, stereotypes are embedded in various social and cultural contexts and have the potential to dictate individuals’ thoughts and behaviors. Given the widespread attention on matters of current and future immigration policy, as well as the increasing diversity of immigrants arriving and contributing to the sociocultural and economic landscape of the US, there is a great deal of value in understanding people’s perceptions of different immigrant groups. Additionally, the recent spotlight on xenophobia in the US that has partially emerged with the rise in anti-Asian sentiments fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Cabral, 2021; Escobar, 2020; Zhou, 2021) signals a need for awareness of these stereotypes in order to educate others and mitigate the spread of harmful misconceptions. The present study contributes to this goal and the extant literature on stereotyping by examining the perceptions of immigrants broadly, as well as disentangling the influences of immigrant status and ethnicity. Overall, results suggest that people do in fact hold varying beliefs about immigrant groups in the US, an increasingly growing population that continues to be understudied in the organizational literature. Despite having relatively little knowledge on how immigrants could be classified or grouped, approximately one fifth of participants believed that a defining characteristic of immigrants was their pursuit of better life conditions or opportunities. Additionally, approximately 40% of participants indicated that they were aware of multiple reasons to obtain visas (e.g., employment, education). However, it was rare for participants to reference visas by specific category, such as H-1B for specialized workers or F for students. As a 59 note, this study also did not differentiate between true nonimmigrants (i.e. temporary) and immigrants (i.e., permanent), although a fraction of responses did highlight expected duration for stay in the country. In terms of understanding the valence of immigrant perceptions, immigrants were described with significantly more negative stereotypes than non-immigrants (i.e., Americans), regardless of the group’s ethnicity when participants generated their own responses. However, this distinction between immigrants and non-immigrants did not appear for ratings obtained from the different stereotype scales. It is likely that the traits covered by these scales (e.g., competence) are not viewed as central to the immigrant identity and therefore there would be no differences between immigrants and non-immigrants. Nevertheless, it is clear that immigrants are at a disadvantage as they were consistently viewed more negatively. The current findings also point to the importance of other characterizing information (i.e., ethnicity) when forming judgements of other groups. In general, the Latinx and Middle Eastern groups were perceived more negatively than the Asian group, as demonstrated by the use of more negative stereotypes and lower ratings on competence and sociability. However, there was no evidence that ethnicity moderated the effect of immigrant status on negative stereotypes, although it did for positive stereotypes. Exploratory results indicated that the Asian group was consistently rated higher on positive stereotypes than either the Latinx or Middle Eastern group, and that this positive effect of Asian ethnicity was stronger for immigrants than non-immigrants. The only exceptions to this pattern came when considering warmth. In contrast to the expected result of the Latinx group being viewed more negatively overall than the Asian group, there were no significant differences between the two in terms of warmth, as well as failure to detect an interaction effect. This finding for ethnicity, however, has previously been reported by Lee and 60 Fiske (2006), who found that several Asian (e.g., Asian, Chinese, Japanese) and Latinx (e.g., Latino, Mexican, South American) groups both were described as low in warmth. Although low warmth could be attributed to greater perceived competence and resulting envy towards Asians while very low competence results in disgust for Latinx (Fiske & Lee, 2012), the broad attribute of warmth by itself cannot capture this differentiation. Nevertheless, these results demonstrate that it is important to consider the individual attributes of a group or person rather than broadly classifying them as uniformly negative. This view is consistent with the stereotype content model (SCM; Fiske et al., 2002) that considers perceptions of competence and warmth together, as well as previous findings of the ambivalence (e.g., high competence, low warmth) of immigrant stereotypes (Lee & Fiske, 2006; Reyna et al., 2013). Further, it is also important to recognize that competence and warmth by themselves do not concretely reflect the underlying rationale for the stereotypes. In recognition of this issue, this study also sought to identify the contributing factors of these stereotypes. Based on Fiske and Lee’s (2012) proposition that stereotypes (i.e., competence, warmth) result from characteristics of social structure (i.e., competition, status), the present study explored the nuanced nature of how perceived group status and competition affect people’s judgements. Status and competition are particularly relevant for examining attitudes towards immigrants because they may reflect realistic threats to the American in-group. For example, the finding that the Asian group was rated the highest on status, consistent with the model minority stereotype, could be threatening because higher status may be indicative of prestigious education and careers that could then take away from the status of the existing dominant majority group. However, this study provided contrasting evidence that depicts status overall as a positive quality, such that higher status resulted both in more positive stereotypes 61 and fewer negative stereotypes. Rather than viewing another group’s status as a threat, it is possible that it is instead perceived as a desirable asset. It is important to note, however, that the effect of status on a given outcome was also a function of the ethnicity of the group being rated. For example, having high status decreased the use of negative stereotypes for the Latinx group, but either increased or did not affect the use of negative stereotypes for the non-Latinx group (depending on whether referring to negative stereotypes – scale or negative stereotypes – list). In contrast to the generally positive effect of status, higher competition overall resulted in more negative stereotypes and fewer positive stereotypes. Consistent with ITT (Stephan & Stephan, 2002), this finding may suggest that competition is a threat and leads to negative perceptions of the out-group because valuable resources (e.g., jobs) could be taken away from the in-group and harm their position as the dominant group in society. Again however, this interpretation again may not be applicable or appropriate depending on the specific group being evaluated. For example, high (vs. low) competition decreased the use of positive stereotypes for the Latinx group but had a positive effect for the non-Latinx group. Given the political rhetoric that has circulated the harmful stereotypes of the Latinx community, and particularly Latinx immigrants, as “job stealers,” it makes sense that the Latinx group would not be rated as positively when competition is elevated. In contrast, high competition increased the use of positive stereotypes for the Asian group. This finding could yield support for the model minority hypothesis. Specifically, the Asian group, seen as particularly competent and desirable in contrast to the other ethnic groups rated (i.e., Latinx, Middle Eastern), may be viewed as a positive asset during times of competition and therefore described with more positive stereotypes. 62 Furthermore, additional interactions involving status and competition also suggest a need to consider the impact of each of these variables’ influences on each other and how that joint effect predicts stereotypes for different groups. Although there was no evidence to suggest that this interaction between status and competition predicted negative stereotypes, results did show that it did predict the use of positive stereotypes. Specifically, groups were seldom described with positive stereotypes when seen as both low in status and competition. Interestingly, the number of positive stereotypes increased with the perception of high status but only when the group presented low competition. When there was high competition, having high status appeared to slightly decrease the number of positive stereotypes used although this effect was not statistically significant. Again, these findings may suggest a sense of threat on behalf of the in- group. Having high status initially may be perceived positively, but not when status could be considered an advantage in the presence of competition for valuable resources. A more nuanced view also appears when considering the joint effect of status and competition for the different immigrant and ethnic groups separately. For example, although the effect of status was not consistent across levels of competition when predicting positive stereotypes – Paragraph for non-immigrants, having high status was positively associated with these stereotypes regardless of competition (although status was only statistically significant for low competition). This may first indicate that individuals do not expect immigrants in general to have high status but when they do have high status, this is seen as impressive and therefore results in more positive stereotypes. Additionally, the three-way interaction of Latinx ethnicity, status, and competition on negative stereotypes – Scale again suggested that there was a buffering effect of high status regardless of competition, but that this only applied to the non- Latinx group. It is likely that the Latinx identity is the main defining feature relative to the 63 contextual characteristics, and that status especially simply does not matter when describing this group. Additionally, individuals’ understanding of what “high” status means for this group may inevitably be skewed towards lower SES given that Hispanic or Latino individuals are more likely than Caucasian individuals to live in poverty, drop out of high school, and lack health insurance (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014; Williams et al., 2010). Finally, interpretations become even more complex when considering the interaction effect of status and competition for the different (non)immigrant ethnic groups. When predicting competence, results first showed that the Latinx groups (immigrant and non-immigrant) were more negatively affected by high competition than the non-Latinx groups and that generally high status had a positive effect. However, the exception to this pattern was for Latinx immigrants, who did not appear to be positively affected by high status when they were seen as posing high competition. One interpretation could be that regardless of status, Latinx immigrants pose a realistic threat to the well-being of non-immigrants. This interpretation would be consistent with the negative rhetoric of the US border crisis and Latinx immigrants stealing American jobs and resources. One way to prevent this group from accessing and taking advantage of American resources could therefore be to negatively target their competence so that they are relegated to the lowest ranks of society. In contrast, for Asian immigrants, there was a significant positive effect of status on competence but only at high levels of competition. This main effect is expected given that status is associated with prestigious jobs and economic success (Lee & Fiske, 2006), but what is more interesting is the finding that high competition, regardless of status, was associated with higher competence for Asian immigrants than non-Asian immigrants. Rather than focus on how high competition impacts Asian immigrants, it may make more sense 64 to focus on the comparison group (i.e., Latinx and Middle Eastern immigrants). Based on the previous interpretation for the four-way Latinx interaction, high competition from certain groups, particularly those with highly stigmatized identities, could signal a threat to the non-immigrant in-group. This would then explain why high competition is overall associated with lower competence for the non-Asian immigrant group. Additionally, each of these four-way interaction effects were also significant when predicting behavioral sociability. It may be inferred that individuals tend to clearly differentiate between different social groups while considering other background characteristics (i.e., status, competition) when forming judgements about others’ potentially positive attributes, which may pose a threat to the in-group. Overall, the complexity of these findings speak to the need to consider multiple contextual factors when attempting to better understand stereotypes for groups characterized by multiple identities. I also considered the role of a participant’s own demographic characteristics (race, parental immigration status) and how they might affect the obtained results. Neither race nor parental background significantly impacted the findings relating to immigrant status. This may be because participants were instructed to rate their group based on what they believed others thought, so any potential effects of their own background could have been mitigated. Another possibility could be that because all participants were US-born citizens, the immigrant identity may not have been as influential of a characteristic as compared to ethnicity. However, it could also be argued that the immigrant identity would instead be more salient to individuals born and raised in the US. With regard to group ethnicity as a predictor, having at least one non-native parent strengthened the negative effect of Latinx ethnicity on behavioral competence and conversely, strengthened the positive effect of Asian ethnicity on behavioral competence. Given the relatively small sample size of individuals with at least one non-native parent (n = 68), these 65 effects could be reflective of personal experiences and individual’s own biases. Regardless, these findings continue to highlight the influential role of how different individual identities and backgrounds impact perceptions and judgments of others. Additionally, a major strength of this study was its ability to capture the rich detail underlying the stereotypes of various groups given the multiple qualitative measures, and thus the ability to infer the consistency of the observed results. Such information would not have been possible to obtain with only the quantitative rating measures. Overall, findings from Study 1 demonstrate the truly nuanced nature of social group stereotypes. In addition to considering the role of the targeted group’s demographic attributes on others’ perceptions, future research would benefit from greater attention devoted to identifying the underlying rationale for why such stereotypes emerge and persist throughout society. It is also important to understand how stereotypes contribute to actual behavior in order to form a more complete picture of how individuals with stigmatized identities are affected. Study 2 further builds on these conclusions to examine the role of job candidates’ demographic characteristics on hiring evaluations in a modified resume screening experiment. 66 STUDY 2 METHOD Study 2 examined the extent to which certain groups of immigrant job applicants are selected for a designated job position relative to other groups of immigrant applicants and non- immigrant applicants. My aim for this study was to determine the extent to which certain immigrant groups are perceived and rated more favorably on hiring outcomes and selected for the position than other immigrant groups and non-immigrant groups. In addition, I also examined the extent to which job status influences the applicant hiring outcomes. To test these questions, Study 2 employed a 2 (immigrant status: immigrant vs. non-immigrant) X 3 (national origin: Chinese vs. Canadian vs. Mexican) X 2 (job status: high vs. low) between-subjects factorial design, resulting in a total of twelve experimental conditions. Table 2 presents the twelve conditions. Study 2 Pilot Prior to collecting data for Study 2, a pilot study was conducted with a sample of 97 undergraduate students. After removing individuals that were not eligible or who failed more than one attention check (n = 18), the final pilot sample size was 79. The purpose of this pilot was to ensure that the manipulations (status of job, candidate ethnicity, candidate immigrant status) were salient enough in the materials for participants to be able to identify these characteristics, in addition to confirming non-manipulated characteristics were consistent across conditions. Participants were told that they would be evaluating a candidate’s professional social media profile for a specific job position at a company. In examining the job descriptions, results indicated that the low-status administrative assistant job was rated significantly lower in status, skill required, education required, and cognitive demand required than the high-status manager job (Table 18). External client contact required for the job was not significantly different across 67 the low- and high-status jobs. For the candidate, the level of job-related skill did not differ between the low-status and high-status candidates, demonstrating that the candidates possessed similar levels of skill for the respective low and high-status jobs. Results also indicated that participants rated a high-school diploma lower in education level than the university. However, because other characteristics (i.e., writing quality, vocabulary used) that were expected to differ between the low-status and high-status conditions did not differ, modifications (e.g., simpler vocabulary) were made to the materials for the full study launch. In order to examine whether the low-status candidate would be perceived as qualified for the high-status job and vice versa, participants were told that some candidates may be considered for positions other than those for which they originally applied. Participants first evaluating the low-status candidate were asked to evaluate the same candidate for the high-status job, and participants first evaluating the high-status candidate were asked to evaluate the same candidate for the low-status job. Results indicated a significant difference in candidate qualification for this second job, such that low-status candidates were less qualified for the high-status job than the high-status candidates were for the low-status job. Note here that this rating ranged from 1 (very unqualified) to 7 (very overqualified). Candidate demographic characteristics were then examined. According to a one-way ANOVA with age as the DV and ethnicity as the IV, perceived candidate age differed significantly across ethnic conditions, F(2,75) = 8.79, p < .001. A post-hoc Tukey test revealed the Chinese candidate was seen as significantly younger than both the Canadian candidate and Mexican candidate. Because the mean differences in age were both less than 3 years and it may be difficult for participants to accurately estimate an individual’s age, no changes to the materials were seen as necessary. Candidate attractiveness also differed significantly across ethnic 68 conditions, F(2,76) = 7.32, p < .01, with a post-hoc Tukey test showing that the Canadian candidate was perceived as more attractive than the Chinese and Mexican candidates, but the Chinese and Mexican candidates did not differ from each other. Because these attractiveness scores centered around the midpoint (label: Neutral) of the scale, no changes to the materials were seen as necessary. Lastly, results revealed that participants accurately differentiated between the Canadian, Chinese, and Mexican ethnic conditions, F(2,76) = 518.38, p < .001. Study 2 Participants According to a power analysis conducted using G*Power version 3.1 software (Faul et al., 2007) with 80% power for a medium effect size at a .05 level of statistical significance, a total of 288 participants was needed, although 50 participants per cell were desired due to the sensitivity of detecting a three-way interaction. Therefore, a total of 600 participants was recommended. This sample was recruited from the Qualtrics Panels system. Using Qualtrics Panels allowed for a more generalizable sample where participants were more likely to have experience in the workplace as compared to convenience samples of students. In order to ensure data quality, several procedures were implemented both by the Qualtrics Panels team and myself. First, filters were requested to only allow for the survey to be completed by full-time workers and native-born U.S. citizens. Other filters were also implemented to ensure representation across gender, age, race, and political affiliation (Appendix F). Second, attention and manipulation checks were included throughout the survey to identify potentially low-quality responses. Last, Qualtrics Panels only included those participants that thoroughly (e.g., passing attention and manipulation checks, not straight-lining) completed the full survey (Holt & Loraas, 2019), thus providing higher quality responses to compile into the final data set. Responses 69 identified by either the Qualtrics Panels team or myself that did not meet these criteria were excluded from analyses. Three responses were removed that had been identified as low quality that had not previously been detected and removed by the Qualtrics Panels service using speeding, attention, and manipulation checks and qualitative response quality (e.g., no gibberish). The final sample size was 648 full-time (35 hours or more per week) workers, with 96% having correctly responded to all six manipulation checks and only two participants (.3%) incorrectly answering two or fewer attention checks. The average participant age was 44.69 years (SD = 14.57), 51.9% identified as female, and 69.2% identified as White, followed by 14.1% Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 5.7% other racial backgrounds. For political affiliation, 32.4% identified as Democrat, 29.9% Republican, and 37.7% Independent. For educational attainment and occupation, 78.2% of the sample had at least a bachelor’s degree and individuals worked in a variety of occupations (largest single occupation group was professional and business services, 14.8%). Study 2 Procedure Before beginning Study 2, participants were presented with an informed consent form (Appendix G) and had the option to choose whether or not to participate. Participants were randomly assigned to one of twelve experimental conditions. Participants were instructed to imagine that they are in charge of hiring a new candidate for a designated high-status (i.e., manager) or low-status position (i.e., administrative assistant) at a fictional organization. They were presented with the job description (Appendix H) and the candidate’s professional social media profile. The profile contained the applicant’s name, educational institution, location of previous work experience, and affiliations to reflect their immigrant status (i.e., specifying from the U.S. or born and raised in another country) and ethnicity (i.e., name, headshot, professional 70 organization). Measures used for the hiring evaluation included impressions (e.g., job suitability) of the candidate and intent to hire the candidate. Participants also responded to questions regarding their own motivation to respond without prejudice, social desirability responding, non- identifying demographic information, and manipulation and attention checks. Study 2 Measures All measures below can be found in Appendix F. All participants completed every measure based on the condition of their randomly assigned job candidate unless otherwise specified. Job Suitability. The extent to which a candidate is perceived as suitable for the given - position was assessed using an adapted three item-measure of hiring intentions from Derous, Nguyen, and Ryan (2009; α = .75) and a three-item measure of overall applicant evaluations based on items from Podsakoff et al. (2011) and Bart et al. (1997). A sample item from Derous et al. (2009) is “Given all information you read about this applicant, what is the likelihood that you would invite this person for an interview (i.e., the next stage of the hiring process)?” and was scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high). A sample item based on Podsakoff et al. (2011) and Bart et al. (1997) is “If we hired the applicant, I think this applicant would be a success on the job” and was scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = .90). Because these measures were highly correlated (r = .67), they were combined into one scale. Reliability of this combined scale, henceforth named Job Suitability, was satisfactory (α = .87) and an EFA using principal axis factoring with varimax rotation indicated there was one underlying factor. 71 Stereotype Content. The extent to which a candidate is perceived as competent and warm was assessed using the 10-item Stereotype Content Appraisal Scale (adapted from Carlsson & Bjorklund, 2010; Fiske et al., 2002). Each item contains two traits anchored on a 7- point bipolar scale. A sample competence appraisal item (α = .94) is “The applicant seems incompetent…competent.” A sample warmth appraisal item (α = .93) is “The applicant seems cold…warm.” Prejudice. The extent to which participants hold prejudiced attitudes towards the referenced social group was included as a control variable and assessed using an adapted version of the seven-item Modern Racism Scale by McConahay et al. (1981; α = .83 ). Each item was modified to reference the social group designated by the randomly assigned condition. A sample item is “Discrimination against Mexican immigrants is no longer a problem in the U.S.” Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice (EMS, IMS). The extent to which participants respond in a non-prejudiced manner towards the referenced social group was included as a control variable and assessed using adapted versions of the External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale (EMS) and the Internal Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale (IMS) by Plant and Devine (1998). A sample EMS (α = .83) item is “I try to act non-prejudiced toward Black people because of pressure from others.” A sample IMS (α = .82) item is “I attempt to act in nonprejudiced ways toward Black people because it is personally important to me.” Each item was modified to reference the social group designated by the randomly assigned condition. Each of the two scales contain five items that are each measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). 72 Social Desirability (SDS). The extent to which participants respond to questions in a socially desirable manner was included as a control variable assessed using 16 out of the 17 items from the Social Desirability Scale (SDS) – 17 developed by Stober (2001; α = .77). The omitted item refers to illegal behaviors and was not relevant for this study. A sample item is “I occasionally speak badly of others behind their back.” Each item was scored on a 1 = true, 0 = false scale. Demographics. Participants reported their gender, age, ethnicity, family immigration history, employment status, education, and political affiliation. Ethnicity and family immigration history were measured identical to Study 1. Manipulation and Attention Checks. Participants completed several manipulation checks asking them to indicate the extent to which certain cues were presented to them (i.e., immigrant status of applicant, ethnicity of applicant, job title, previous employment location). Throughout the task, they were also asked random response questions (e.g., Please select ‘strongly disagree’) among the scale items to indicate that they are paying close attention to the material. Participants that incorrectly answered the manipulation checks or three or more attention checks were excluded from analyses. Study 2 Exploratory Measures Realistic and Symbolic Threat. The extent to which a given group was perceived as a realistic or symbolic threat was assessed using 6 items adapted from Gonzalez et al. (2008). Each item was modified to reference the social group designated by the randomly assigned condition. A sample realistic threat (α = .94) item is “Because of the presence of Mexican immigrants, people have more difficulty finding a job.” A sample symbolic threat (α = .94) is “Mexican 73 immigrants are a threat to the American culture.” Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Because these subscales were highly correlated (r = .67) and included = for exploratory purposes, they were combined into one scale, labeled Threat. Reliability of this combined scale was excellent (α = .95) and an EFA using principal axis factoring with varimax rotation indicated there was one underlying factor. Xenophobia. The extent to which one dislikes or has prejudice against immigrants was assessed using Van der Veer et al.’s (2013) xenophobia scale. A sample item is “Immigration in this country is out of control.” Each item was measured on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Social Distance. The extent to which one is willing to accept a member of a given social group in various situations was assessed using Bogardus’s (1933) social distance scale. Participants selected the highest level of acceptance they would be willing to accept six different groups (Canadian American/Immigrant, Mexican American/Immigrant, Chinese American/Immigrant). These levels, organized from highest to lowest level of acceptance, included “As family members by marriage”, “As close friends”, “As neighbors”, “As coworkers in my workgroup”, “As citizens in my country (U.S.)”, “As visitors in my country (U.S.)”, and “Prefer not to accept members of this group in my country (U.S.)”. Acculturation. The extent to which one viewed certain social groups as intending to acculturate to the U.S was assessed using an adaptation of Croucher’s (2009; α = .82) acculturation scale. Each item was modified to reference the social group designated by the randomly assigned condition. A sample item is “I think Mexican immigrants want to become American.” Each of the items each measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). 74 Immigrant Classification Knowledge & Knowledge Rating. Participants’ knowledge of and familiarity with the current system to classify immigrant groups in the US was assessed using the same measures and coding procedure as Study 1. Frequencies of each theme as well as mean and standard deviation of the knowledge rating are presented in Table 24. Opinions on Social Issues. To mask the purpose of the study to participants, the study included items on other relevant social issues (e.g., social media use for employment decisions, right to health care, free college). All items were adapted from the Social Media use for Employment Decisions scale (Drouin et al., 2015; Sameen & Cornelius, 2013) and Britannica’s procon.org (https://www.procon.org/). Items were adapted to a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). These items were not included in analyses. 75 STUDY 2 RESULTS I first constructed the scales and composite scores by reverse-coding the appropriate items and then calculating average scores. Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 19. As seen in Table 19, prejudice and xenophobia, which were included as potential control variables, were significantly associated with two of the three outcome variables. Thus, they were both included as covariates for the analyses examining competence and job suitability. Although there was also a strong correlation (r = .68) between prejudice and xenophobia which is not surprising given the similarity in the scale content, they were included as separate covariates to account for both xenophobia and racial bias. Motivation to respond without prejudice was also included in this study as a potential covariate, but only IMS was included in the hypothesis tests given that EMS was not significantly correlated with any of the outcomes. SDS was also significantly associated with two outcomes and therefore was included for the analyses of warmth and job suitability. Lastly, although gender was significantly associated with the three outcomes, it was not included as a covariate when testing the hypotheses given that there was not a theoretically-relevant reason to do so.1 Threat, social distance, knowledge, and acculturation were not included in Hypothesis tests but were included in exploratory analyses. A three-way MANOVA next examined the omnibus effect of immigrant status, ethnicity, and job status on perceived competence, warmth, and job suitability. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 20. Results first indicated that immigrant status had a significant effect on job suitability, F(1,635) = 4.68, p < .05, such that immigrant applicants were rated as significantly lower on job suitability than non-immigrant applicants. However, there 1 To rule out the potential influence of gender on the results, all analyses were conducted a second time with gender included as a covariate. Including gender did not significantly impact any findings. 76 were no significant differences in competence, F(1,635) = .03, or warmth, F(1,635) = .50, as a function of immigrant status. Next, no significant differences emerged on competence, warmth, or job evaluations as a function of ethnicity, F(2,635) = .79; 2.34; 1.9, or status of the job, F(1,635) = 2.65; 1.15; .07. Lastly, there were no significant interaction effects between immigrant status, ethnicity, or job status on either of the three outcomes. Although these preliminary findings suggest a lack of support for most hypotheses, note that this overall MANOVA did not include covariates that could substantially impact the results. Thus, each of the hypotheses were further tested using a series of three-way ANOVAs with the appropriate covariates included based on the correlations in Table 19. Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 stated that (4a) competence ratings will be lower for immigrant (vs. non- immigrant) applicants and (4b) ethnicity will moderate the effect of immigrant status on competence ratings such that the negative effect of immigrant status on competence will be stronger for the Chinese and Mexican applicants (vs. Canadian applicant). A two-way ANOVA with immigrant status and ethnicity predicting competence with prejudice, xenophobia, and IMS included as covariates indicated that immigrant status did not significantly predict the candidate’s competence ratings, F(1,638) = .09, ns. Although the expected relationships did not appear, it should be recognized that IMS was significantly and positively related to competence. In other words, individuals that lacked motivation to appear nonprejudiced tended to rate candidates lower on competence. Further, the interaction between immigrant status and ethnicity was not significant, F(2,638) = .17, ns. Effect sizes are reported in Table 21. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was not supported. 77 Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 5 stated that (5a) warmth ratings will be lower for immigrant (vs. non- immigrant) applicants and (5b) that ethnicity will moderate the effect of immigrant status on warmth ratings such that the negative effect of immigrant status on warmth will be stronger for the Chinese and Mexican applicants (vs. Canadian applicant). A two-way ANOVA with immigrant status and ethnicity predicting warmth with SDS as a covariate first indicated that immigrant status did not significantly predict the candidate’s warmth ratings, F(1,640) = .25, ns. Further, the interaction between immigrant status and ethnicity was not significant, F(2,640) = 1.08, ns. Effect sizes are reported in Table 22. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was not supported. Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis 6 stated that job suitability will be lower for immigrant (vs. non-immigrant) applicants, but that this effect will be stronger when the applicants have applied for a high-status (vs. low-status) job. A two-way ANOVA with immigrant status and job status predicting job suitability with prejudice, xenophobia, IMS, and SDS as covariates indicated that immigrant status did not significantly predict the candidate’s job suitability, although the effect could be considered marginally significant, F(1,640) = 3.69, p = .06. Further, the interaction between immigrant status and job status was not significant, F(1,640) = 1.25, ns. Effect sizes for all job evaluation results are reported in Table 23. Thus, Hypothesis 6 was not supported. Hypothesis 7 Hypothesis 7 stated that job suitability will be lower for Chinese and Mexican (vs. Canadian) applicants, but that this effect will be stronger when the applicants have applied for a high-status (vs. low-status) job. A two-way ANOVA with ethnicity and job status predicting job 78 suitability with prejudice, xenophobia, IMS, and SDS included as covariates indicated that ethnicity did not significantly predict the candidate’s job evaluation rating, F(2,638) = .84, ns. Further, the interaction between ethnicity and job status was not significant, F(2,638) = .30, ns. Thus, Hypothesis 7 was not supported. Hypothesis 8 Hypothesis 8 stated that ethnicity will moderate the effect of immigrant status on job-job suitability, such that the negative effect of immigrant status will be stronger for the Chinese and Mexican applicants (vs. Canadian applicant). However, this interaction effect will be stronger when the applicants have applied for a high-status (vs. low-status) job. A three-way ANOVA with immigrant status, ethnicity, and job status predicting job suitability with prejudice, xenophobia, IMS, and SDS as covariates indicated that the interaction between immigrant status and ethnicity was not significant, F(2,632) = 1.40, ns. Further, the three-way interaction between immigrant status, ethnicity, and job status was not significant, F(2,632) = .29, ns. Thus, Hypothesis 8 was not supported. 79 STUDY 2 EXPLORATORY RESULTS Participant Race and Parental Immigration Status as Moderators Consistent with Study 1, I examined whether participant’s race and parental immigration status acted as moderators. I ran a series of regressions with each of the three dependent variables for Hypotheses 1 through 3 to examine the effects between immigrant status and ethnicity, respectively, and their interactions with these participant demographic variables. No significant interactions appeared for either the non-native parent variable or participant race variables. Qualitative Knowledge The secondary exploratory analysis examined the role of participants’ knowledge of the U.S. immigrant classification system using the same free-response and rating measures as completed in Study 1. Descriptive statistics displaying the extent to which the different themes were present in the free response questions and participants’ ratings of their own knowledge are found in Table 24. Overall, 41.8% of participants did not specifically refer to the purpose for immigrants’ migration or visa when describing how immigrant groups could be classified. Out of those that did discuss migration or visa purpose, 35.2% provided multiple purposes (e.g., employment, family, education), followed by 10.7% citing only employment purposes. Approximately one fifth (19.7%) of participants classified immigrants by their duration of stay (e.g., temporary, permanent) in the new country and 13.8% referred to documentation status (e.g., documented, undocumented). Oher categories less frequently discussed included culture, other SES characteristics, intention to improve life conditions, survival (e.g., escaping war or conflict), citizenship, and stereotypes. In general, participants also rated their knowledge of 80 immigration relatively low, with an average rating of 2.58 on a 1 (not at all familiar) to 5 (extremely familiar) scale. There were no significant differences in knowledge ratings between individuals that did or did not have at least one parent born outside the US, t(636) = .31, ns. However, there was one significant difference in knowledge as a function of participant’s race, such that Hispanic participants (Mknowledge = 3.02, SD = 1.27) rated their knowledge as significantly higher than White participants (Mknowledge = 2.05, SD = 1.14; g = .78, p < .01). The means for the other racial groups were between these two values. Competence and Warmth as Job Suitability Predictors Third, I examined whether the perceived competence and warmth of the candidate predicted their job suitability. I conducted a hierarchical regression with SDS, IMS, prejudice, and xenophobia as covariates in the first step and competence and warmth added in the second step. Results indicated that both competence, b = .27, β = .42, p < .001, 95% CI = [.21, .32], and warmth, b = .12, β = .22, p < .001, 95% CI = [.08, .17], significantly and positively predicted job suitability. I then considered whether immigrant status would continue to be a significant predictor of job suitability as well as if the interactions between immigrant status and competence and warmth would be significant predictors. Building on the two-step model, a third step was added with immigrant status and the interactions between immigrant status and competence and immigrant status and warmth. The significant interaction between immigrant status and competence was next followed up with simple slopes analyses, which indicated that the positive effect of competence on job suitability was stronger for immigrants than non- immigrants. As seen in Figure 18, this interaction suggests that the role of competence on job suitability ratings is more influential for immigrant candidates than non-immigrant candidates. Out of the individuals perceived as low in competence, immigrant candidates may already be at 81 an additional disadvantage if there is an assumption that other important factors, such as language abilities, do not meet one’s standards for employment. Therefore, providing evidence of competence may help to alleviate these concerns and will likely increase the perception that an immigrant candidate is suitable for the position. Next, I examined whether the interactions between ethnicity and competence as well as ethnicity and warmth would be significant predictors of job suitability. After including the same four covariates as in the most recent analyses, competence, warmth, immigrant status, and the dummy-coded ethnicity variables, there were no significant interactions between ethnicity and either competence, b = -.03, β = -.03, ns for Chinese; b = .02, β = .02, ns for Mexican, or warmth, b = .01, β = .01, ns for Chinese; b = .04, β = .02, ns for Mexican. Further, there were no significant three-way interactions between immigrant status, ethnicity, and competence, b = .02, β = .01, ns for Chinese; b = .10, β = .07, ns for Mexican, or warmth, b = .06, β = .05, ns for Chinese; b = -.02, , β = -.02, ns for Mexican). Lastly, I tested for the effect of the interactions between immigrant status, competence, warmth, and job status (high vs. low) in predicting job suitability. The results for this final model with the covariates, immigrant status, competence, warmth, job status, and the interactions predicting job suitability are presented in Table 25. Note that although competence and warmth remained significant predictors throughout all models tested, the significant main effect of immigrant status in the third step, as well as the interaction between immigrant status and competence that emerged in the third and fourth steps, became non-significant in the final model. Further, an additional interaction appeared in the fourth step between competence and job status. However, it also became non-significant in the final model. 82 Bias as a Moderator Fourth, given the significant role of the covariates in predicting competence, warmth, and the job suitability and the lack of support for my hypotheses, I considered whether the bias- related measures (i.e., prejudice, xenophobia, IMS, EMS) moderated the effect of immigrant status and ethnicity on competence, warmth, and job suitability. I used three hierarchical regression models to evaluate any effects on competence, warmth, and job suitability separately. Each model included these four prejudice-related variables, immigrant status, ethnicity, and all interaction terms. The warmth and job evaluation models also included SDS as a covariate in the first step. The job suitability model also included job status, as well as any corresponding interaction terms, as predictors that were entered as additional steps. Overall, no support was found for prejudice and xenophobia as moderators in either of the three models. However, EMS did significantly interact with immigrant status and ethnicity when predicting warmth (Table 26), as well as with immigrant status, ethnicity, and job status when predicting job suitability (Table 27). As seen in Table 27, the three-way interaction between immigrant status, Mexican ethnicity, and EMS was a significant positive predictor of candidate warmth. This interaction is presented in Figure 19. Simple slopes tests for the effect of EMS and Mexican ethnicity on warmth for non-immigrants indicated that there were no significant differences in the effect of either predictor at different levels of the other predictor. However, for immigrants, both the ethnicity and EMS effect were significant. Specifically, there was a significant difference in the effect of Mexican ethnicity on warmth between individuals who were low or high on EMS. Individuals high on EMS rated the Mexican group as significantly warmer than did those who 83 were low on EMS, b = .15, p < .05. Also, individuals low (vs. high) on EMS rated the Mexican group as significantly lower on warmth than the non-Mexican group, b = -.44, p < .05. Next, as seen in Table 27, there was a negative effect of the three-way interaction between immigrant status, job status, and EMS on job suitability, although the confidence interval contained 0. Next, the four-way interaction of immigrant status, Chinese ethnicity, job status, and EMS is presented in Figure 20 broken down by different combinations of immigrant status and job status. There are two significant findings here. First, for immigrants in the low status job condition, job suitability for the Chinese group were significantly lower when individuals had high (vs. low) EMS, b = -.10, p < .05. There were no differences in ratings for non-Chinese immigrant candidates as a function of the rater’s EMS. Second, for immigrants in the high status job condition, job suitability was significantly lower for the Chinese group when individuals had low (vs. high) EMS, b = -.33, p < .05. There were no differences in ratings between Chinese and non-Chinese immigrants when individuals had high EMS. Next, results of the four-way interaction of immigrant status, Mexican ethnicity, job status, and EMS, are presented in Figure 21. As in the last four-way interaction, there are two main findings here. However, both of these significant findings pertain to the non-immigrant candidates in the high job status condition. For these individuals, there were significant effects of both ethnicity and EMS on job suitability. First, Mexican non-immigrant candidates were rated as significantly higher when individuals had low (vs. high) EMS, b = -.17, p < .01. Ratings for non-Mexican non-immigrants in the high job status condition were similar across EMS levels. Also for the non-immigrant high job status condition, individuals with low (vs. high) EMS rated Mexican candidates as significantly higher than non-Mexican candidates, b = .28, p < .01. Although this difference was not statistically significant, individuals with high EMS in the high 84 job status condition appeared to rate Mexican candidates more negatively than non-Mexican candidates, b = -.24, ns. Social Distance Fifth, I examined the social distance variables. I first tested whether there were significant differences in perceived social distance between the immigrant and non-immigrant group and between the different ethnic groups. Because all participants reported social distance for each of the six social groups, I aggregated all scores for each group to calculate the mean social distance of the six specific groups as well as the mean distance for non-immigrants, immigrants, and the Canadian, Chinese, and Mexican groups. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 28. A one-sample t-test showed that the immigrant group was rated as significantly higher in social distance than the non-immigrant group, t(647) = 3.33, p < .01, d = .13. Although this mean difference is statistically significant, both of these groups on average were rated in between being accepted “As close friends” and “As neighbors.” As noted in Table 28, results of additional one-sample t-tests showed that the Canadian group was rated as significantly lower in social distance than either the Chinese, d = .19, or Mexican group, d = .18, but the Chinese and Mexican group did not differ from each other, d = .01. Threat Sixth, I examined the predictive role of the combined realistic and symbolic threat variable (‘Threat’). I ran three regression models for each of the three outcomes (competence, warmth, job suitability), with the appropriate covariates included for each model. Threat only appeared to be a significant predictor of warmth, b = -.10, β = -.10, p < .05, when controlling for SDS; however, this effect became non-significant when including prejudice, xenophobia, 85 knowledge, and IMS as covariates. Next, I ran each of these models again while also including immigrant status, ethnicity, and their interactions with threat. There were no significant interactions between these variables for any of the three outcomes. Because competence and warmth previously appeared to significantly predict job suitability (Table 25), I ran another model with competence, warmth, and their interactions with the other variables added as predictors. There were no significant interactions between threat and either competence or warmth. Because job status appeared to previously significantly interact with other variables to predict job suitability (Table 27), I also tested for interactions between immigrant status, ethnicity, job status, and threat. These results indicated that there were no significant interactions. Lastly, I examined whether threat was a predictor of social distance for the immigrant and different ethnic groups. After running models with prejudice, xenophobia, immigration knowledge, and IMS as covariates in the first step and threat as a predictor in the second step, threat was a significant positive predictor of social distance for the immigrant, b = .37, β = .20, p < .01, Canadian, b = .27, β = .16, p < .05, Chinese, b = .47, β = .25, p < .001, and Mexican, b = .35, β = .19, p < .01, groups. Furthermore, the change in R2 that occurred when adding threat was significant across all models (R2 ranged from .11 for Canadian social distance to .25 for Mexican social distance, ΔR2 ranged from .01 to .02). Threat was also a significant predictor for each of the different immigrant and non-immigrant ethnic groups (b ranged from. 26 for Canadian non- immigrant to .47 for both Chinese immigrant and non-immigrant). Note that prejudice was not a significant predictor of social distance in each of these models and the significance of the effects of xenophobia, immigration knowledge, and IMS differed based on the model. Although it is plausible that the extent to which one feels threatened by a given social group predicts the 86 distance one places between themselves and that group, it is also possible that the reverse may occur. I therefore examined whether social distance for the immigrant, Canadian, Chinese, and Mexican groups predicted threat, with all previous covariates included. Social distance for each of these four groups, as well as for each of the six specific immigrant/non-immigrant ethnic groups (b ranged from .03 for Canadian immigrants to .06 for Chinese non-immigrants) was a significant predictor of threat. Although this effect of social distance on threat was statistically significant, the standardized effect sizes were much smaller than when previously using threat to predict social distance. Thus, this lends support to the idea of perceived threat resulting in an individual distancing themselves from a specific group versus one feeling threatened because they feel distanced. 87 STUDY 2 DISCUSSION The primary goal of Study 2 was to investigate the effect of job candidates’ immigrant status and ethnicity on various hiring outcomes. Additionally, I considered how the status of the job in consideration as well as various individual rater characteristics affected these results. Preliminary findings indicated that immigrant candidates received lower ratings on job suitability than non-immigrant candidates. This finding is consistent with the negative immigrant stereotypes obtained from Study 1 and appears to demonstrate the behavioral consequence of stereotypes for this group in practice. However, follow-up tests showed that this difference was non-significant once controlling for certain individual rater attributes reflective of bias, particularly IMS. This point is further supported by the significant three- and four-way interactions that emerged when predicting the candidate’s outcomes. For example, the immigrant status by Mexican ethnicity by job status by EMS interaction that appeared when predicting job suitability (Table 27, Figure 21) demonstrates the potential consequences for members of this group when an evaluator is unconcerned with appearing prejudiced. Such findings highlight the influential role of the rater’s own biases, or the lack of motivation to refrain from allowing one’s biases to affect their actions, within a hiring setting. This is a topic that has been of interest in the organizational literature (e.g., Latu et al., 2015) and poses significant value in practice. Further, there were no statistically significant differences between any groups, immigrant or ethnicity, on competence and warmth, with scores on both attributes tending to fall in the upper range of the response scale. It is possible that the fictitious nature of the study and lack of real-world consequences for either the rater or candidate contributed to this uniform response pattern and therefore lack of support for my Hypothesis. Relatedly, the candidates may have been perceived as meeting some kind of threshold for “good enough” for the job given the 88 relatively limited information that they were supplied. In fact, descriptive results (Table 19) indicated that there was not a great amount of variability in the job suitability scores, further suggesting that candidates tended to receive higher scores. This pattern of higher scores was also apparent for competence, lending additional support to the idea that candidates in general were seen as qualified for the position. Given the amount of research demonstrating substantial differences in candidate evaluations during the hiring process as a function of racial, ethnic, or religious identity (e.g., Derous et al., 2015, 2012, 2009; Quillian et al., 2017; Zschirnt & Ruedin, 2016), it is surprising that the present study failed to replicate this pattern of results for ethnicity. Although it would be reasonable to initially believe that these null findings could be explained by an individual’s biases, neither rater prejudice nor xenophobia emerged as significant covariates for any outcome. However, IMS and EMS did appear to have an influential role in predicting outcomes for the candidate. In contrast to the more direct nature of the prejudice and xenophobia measures, which may cause participants to feel uncomfortable or shameful and therefore motivates faking behavior, the IMS and EMS scales focus on the rationale behind such thoughts, which may be less intrusive. However, participants may still have felt pressure to respond in a socially desirable manner, as seen by the significant, although negative, correlation between SDS and IMS (Table 19). Rather than acting as a covariate, prejudice and xenophobia perhaps may moderate the effect of the candidate’s demographic characteristics. In other words, people who are more biased pay more attention to a candidate’s different identities and it is this interaction effect that then impacts the job evaluation rating. This interpretation would be consistent with prior work (e.g., Derous, 2009), but there was no evidence of such moderation. Ultimately, it may be that 89 people today feel more obligated to focus solely on merit when evaluating candidates for a job and therefore are intentional about not allowing preconceptions or initial judgements based on non-relevant information to influence their decisions. In line with this thinking, I included IMS and EMS in the specified models to examine whether they explained a significant amount of variance in the outcomes. Despite IMS explaining a significant amount of variance in candidate competence, this represented a small effect size and there was no significant effect when predicting job suitability. Additionally, EMS did not have a significant main effect on either of the three outcomes. Even though it initially appears that motivation to respond nonprejudiced overall also is not heavily influencing individuals’ decision-making, a closer investigation that considers this characteristic in combination with the candidate and job characteristics reveals a different pattern of results. First, the significant three-way interaction of immigrant status, Mexican ethnicity, EMS when predicting warmth demonstrates the need to consider the role of raters’ own attributes when they are evaluating others. The finding that individuals who were higher on EMS tended to rate the Mexican candidate as warmer than those who were lower on EMS encapsulates the idea that individuals do not want to be seen as prejudiced and this motivation then guides them to evaluate the candidate more positively. Additionally, the Mexican group being rated as less warm only when individuals were low on EMS partially supports the initial hypothesis of the Mexican group being evaluated more negatively in comparison to the other ethnic groups. Furthermore, there was also evidence that the status of the job had an influential role in predicting job suitability, but only when considered alongside the effects of immigrant status and EMS. In partial support of Hypothesis 6, neither the candidate’s immigrant status nor the rater’s EMS level had an effect on job suitability when the job in question was perceived as low in 90 status. However, for jobs seen as high in status, immigrant candidates received more negative ratings but only when the rater had high levels of EMS. Overall, this finding is surprising given the expectation and previous Study 1 support of status as an immigrant being a stigmatizing quality. If individuals feel motivated to respond in a nonprejudiced manner based on how they would be perceived by others, and if there is a general sense of prejudice against immigrants, one would think that evaluations of immigrant candidates would be more positive when the rater had higher, versus lower, levels of EMS. However, given that EMS is rooted in external pressure or accountability, rather than an intrinsic or self-motivated effort, and the nature of the study did not impose this pressure, individuals may have felt comfortable to make a biased decision in this specific scenario. Therefore, although EMS may still accurately describe one’s behaviors in a setting where they may be observed or judged, such an observation in general could be unlikely given the contextual factors of the study. In addition to this unexpected result, this interaction effect also shows that the extent to which the candidate’s identity or rater’s attributes have an influential role in predicting job suitability is contingent on the job’s status. It may be that there is less at-stake when determining whether or not a candidate is well suited for a lower level position such as an administrative assistant. In contrast, raters evaluating candidates for a higher level managerial position may be more likely to use all information possible to them, even if not relevant to the job, to make a decision given the negative consequences of failure in that role. Finally, the evidence for the significant four-way interaction of immigrant status, ethnicity (Mexican and Chinese), job status, and EMS in predicting job suitability further demonstrates the complex nature of individual and contextual features when assessing others. Although these findings suggest an evaluation process characterized by a great deal of nuance 91 relating to not only the applicant and the rater, but also the context of the job, the implications of these results are far-reaching. At first, it may appear that candidate demographic characteristics exert little to no effect on their evaluation or recommendation for a job; however, a more in- depth investigation demonstrates that this may not be accurate. Furthermore, despite there being limitations in the study design that warrant caution in the interpretation and generalization of results to other settings, this research provided evidence to suggest that candidates of certain demographic groups may be put at a disadvantage when it comes to selecting an individual for a job. In regard to other individual characteristics that may influence how a person evaluates a candidate, additional findings showed that perceived social distance may play a role. Overall, immigrants were seen as being more socially distanced as compared to non-immigrants. However, this was a small effect size and the average ratings for both the immigrant and non- immigrant group represented a point in between “as close friends” and “neighbors.” Additionally, the Chinese and Mexican groups were seen as having more distance that the Canadian group, which was expected based on the cultural similarities between Canadians and Americans. In order to better understand this preference for accepting members of certain groups into various roles (e.g., spouse, co-worker) of one’s life, threat was examined as a predictor. Results suggested that perceptions of realistic and symbolic threat were positively associated with the degree of distance for the immigrant and three different ethnic groups, even after accounting for other bias-related indicators. These findings support the propositions of integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000), which has previously been used to explain the inter- group relations specifically between members of native- and foreign-born groups, stating that 92 prejudice towards an out-group can arise due to perceptions of threat to one’s way of life (i.e., realistic threat) or moral and cultural values (i.e., symbolic threat). In sum, this study demonstrates the complexity of individuals’ thought processes when evaluating other people for a job, as well as speaks to the underlying rationale of why certain candidates are favored over others. To date, little research has sought to understand how immigrants may be impacted throughout various employment processes. Drawing attention to the hiring stage may be especially insightful given the additional challenges imposed by bias towards ethnic minority groups, as well as the complicated nature of the immigration processes. By recognizing these specific challenges that immigrant job candidates may be exposed to, future work can focus on implementing and testing solutions (e.g., interviewer training) aimed to minimize bias and its consequences for these individuals. 93 GENERAL DISCUSSION To date, the organizational literature has largely ignored the role one’s identity as an immigrant may exert on various employment experiences. Although there has been attention previously devoted towards identifying stereotypes (e.g., Fiske & Lee, 2012; Lee & Fiske, 2006) and theorizing the underlying mechanisms of these stereotypes and biases (e.g., Stephan et al., 2005; Stephan & Stephan, 2000), there remains a dearth of research that applies this knowledge to the immigrant population. This represents an increasingly serious limitation as the U.S. continues to bring in immigrants from around the world, who then go on to contribute to the national workforce. Furthermore, the increased visibility of xenophobic attitudes and behaviors, including the rise in reported anti-Asian hate incidents (e.g., Yam, 2021), that has emerged in conjunction with the COVID-19 pandemic lends additional support for the need and urgency in examining the experiences of and impact on this population. The present research has sought to expand on these points through a series of investigations that (1) identified the current attitudes and stereotypes towards different immigrant and non-immigrant ethnic group, which may have evolved over the time since previous examinations, (2) identified potential causal mechanisms of these attitudes and stereotypes, and (3) examined the generalizability of these beliefs and potential impact on decision-making in a relevant employment context. Overall, the findings of these two studies suggest certain drivers of attitudes and perceptions of others, such as stereotypes, perceived status, or an individual’s motivation to appear non-prejudiced, require a more nuanced and intersectional lens in order to fully capture the thought processes underlying resulting behaviors. 94 Theoretical Implications The current research presents several contributions to the existing literature on the stigmatization of and discrimination towards immigrants. First, findings suggested that there are pervasive beliefs about immigrant groups, but perhaps more interestingly, that these beliefs are contingent on other demographic attributes such as ethnicity. More specifically, it is likely that immigrants are generally viewed as outsiders in a given country, further supporting Lee and Fiske’s (2006) conceptualization and previous research results; however, the strength of this perception may depend on the stereotypical characteristics associated with a particular ethnic identity. Importantly, this pattern of results reinforces the value of adopting an intersectional lens to identity- and diversity-related research. The findings that stereotypes tended to be more negative for the different immigrant ethnic groups, as compared to the same ethnic groups when in the non-immigrant condition (see Table 8), lends further support to the double jeopardy hypothesis and establishes a precedent for future work on immigrant identity. Of particular importance is the question of whether stereotypes for immigrants operate differently than those for non-immigrants. For example, it may be possible that the content of the stereotypes fundamentally changes in meaning based on the group it is describing (e.g., does hard-working differ in meaning for Caucasian Americans vs. Mexican immigrants?). Evidence in support of this change in content would pose substantial implications for the use of the SCM (Fiske et al., 2002), despite its proclaimed reputation as a pancultural tool for predicting stereotypes (Cuddy et al., 2009), as well as other trait- or adjective-approaches to capturing stereotypes. It could also be the case, however, that this intersectionality of identities instead manifests as an additive effect as was tested in these studies, such that the combination of immigrant identity with certain ethnic 95 identities has a stronger negative effect on stereotypes than either immigrant status or ethnicity alone. Future research that expands on these points would provide additional insight into prevalent theories and approaches to studying stereotypes. The presence of these unique stereotypes based on immigrant status and ethnicity also suggests that each identity plays a separate and influential role in how people perceive and make judgements about others, again supporting an intersectional perspective to diversity research. This may indicate that there are different underlying reasons guiding such views, consistent with the previous argument for the content of stereotypes changing based on immigrant status. In an effort to identify these reasons, I considered the role of contextual factors and found that perceived group status and competition were useful in explaining the emergence of both negative and positive stereotypes across different groups. These findings continue to support the in-group out-group perspective of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), as well as the propositions of realistic group conflict theory (Esses et al., 1998) and integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000) such that immigrants, who may be seen as outsiders, are categorized as a distinct group that represent a source of threat and competition to the in-group. Stereotypes then perhaps reflect a method for the in-group to maintain the dominant position and a sense of security in society. However, it still remains unclear as to whether realistic or symbolic threats, or both, are responsible for guiding these attitudes. Given the competitive nature of applying for and being selected for a job, it is likely that realistic threats would be more salient than symbolic threats. Nevertheless, that does not mean that symbolic threats are completely absent in the context of a workplace. For example, employees may be hesitant to work with or join a team comprised of individuals of different cultural backgrounds if there is ambiguity or conflict in cultural values (e.g., respect for authority). It may be that symbolic threats are more relevant 96 during interpersonal interactions than in situations where individuals are making decisions that could benefit or negatively impact others (e.g., hiring). In addition to examining the roles of immigrant and ethnic identities, the experimental design of Study 2 allowed for an investigation into other individual attributes that may affect one’s decision-making regarding other individuals. Furthermore, the contextualization of these judgements within a hiring setting also assists in establishing the generalizability of the stereotypes previously identified in Study 1. Even though individuals are often aware of the impact prejudice can have in hiring decisions, especially from a litigation perspective, and therefore may have strong intentions or feel pressured to minimize any influence of their own biases, the results of Study 2 show that several factors contribute to someone’s evaluation of a candidate. For example, individuals with high EMS tended to evaluate non-immigrant Mexican candidates more negatively than individuals with low levels of EMS. However, these results did not appear when the sample was limited to immigrant applicants. Furthermore, the pattern of results across different candidates changes when the job is perceived as being low versus high in status (i.e., administrative assistant vs. manager). Therefore, even though one may feel external pressure to refrain from making biased judgements about a candidate and their qualifications, this can still pose issues that result in disproportionate evaluations across different demographic groups. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that the present findings further extend previous decades of work on racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring (see Quillian et al., 2017, Zschirnt et al., 2016 for a meta-analysis) by providing evidence that discrimination may occur in alternative, more informal settings such as social media screening. Ultimately, the present research provides a foundation for further questioning of how characteristics including the intersection of multiple identities, presence of intergroup conflict, 97 and realistic and symbolic threats relate to the stereotyping and discrimination of immigrants. Such insights can be used to push or expand the boundaries of prominent theories (e.g., RGCT, Esses et al., 1998; ITT, Stephan & Stephan, 2000) and contribute to further developments in the study of diversity-related phenomena. Practical Implications Practically, the results of the present research can contribute to organizations in various ways. First, recognition of the stereotypes that exist for immigrant workers can be useful in designing relevant training geared towards minimizing bias, especially for those in hiring positions. Evaluators may not be fully aware of the implicit cues (e.g., foreign education, membership in cultural associations) that could alter their impression of a candidate and potentially remove them from consideration. A future focus on these cues from the lens of signaling theory, which asserts that the receiver of the cues, or signals, is tasked with choosing how to interpret them (Connelly et al., 2011), is likely to provide additional insight. Immigrants may also be in an especially vulnerable position in this case with respect to stigma and their status as a foreigner, as well as potentially a member of an ethnic minority group. Furthermore, the lack of knowledge regarding immigrant classifications may also have identified a need to educate employers on regulations or appropriate practices when it comes to employing foreign workers. Provision of education on these topics, even if these procedures are carried out in specialized departments (e.g., legal affairs), can also serve as an opportunity to resolve other sources of ambiguity or confusion surrounding the expectations for the hiring process (e.g., foreign credential recognition). 98 Next, given that Study 2 approached the issue of hiring discrimination from the perspective of social media screening, a topic that continues to spark interest in the organizational literature as well as has the potential for various ethical and legal implications, organizations may be cautioned to engage in or encourage this practice based on the evidence for differential hiring outcomes for members of different social groups. Additionally, the potential for inconsistency and lack of transparency in decision-making, which may remove safeguards put in place to prevent bias-related decisions, warrant careful consideration if implementing this practice. However, it should also be recognized that the choice of websites screened may affect the relevance of the content; employment- or work-related websites, such as LinkedIn, may be a more appropriate choice than other social media or networking websites that lack this focus. Nevertheless, organizations would benefit from implementing or reviewing existing policies that are aimed to create a systematic and fair procedure for social media use in hiring settings. Lastly, this research emphasizes the importance of individual perceptions and biases when evaluating candidates in a hiring scenario. Whether an individual is motivated by external pressure to appear non-prejudiced, for example, can result in negative or differential outcomes for certain demographic groups. Employers should take care to carefully select the people that will be involved in the hiring processes, as well as provide them the necessary training and information that will allow them to make informed decisions based on the relevant information available. Limitations It is important to recognize that the present research has several limitations. One limitation that is applicable to both studies is the use of a cross-sectional, self-report design. Although this research has revealed some evidence of stereotypes and bias directed towards 99 immigrant groups across two study settings, it is not possible to infer causation of the observed relationships. For example, Study 1 results indicated that low status was associated with more negative stereotypes. Although it is possible that status serves as a predictor of stereotypes, the opposite may be true, as well as the potential for bidirectionality For example, the presence of negative stereotypes assigned to a given group may instead lead to an individual believ0ing that that group is low in status. Future research would benefit from additional experimental work to discern the direction of this relationship. Expanding on the potential for concerns with self-report data, the sensitive and controversial nature of immigration in the US may have prompted individuals sampled in Study 1 to respond in a socially desirable manner or fake their responses. However, participants were reminded throughout the study to respond based on how they believed other individuals in the US would respond. These instructions were implemented to encourage participants to respond openly and honestly without assuming that they personally endorsed the responses they provided. A different, although related issue did appear for Study 2 with respect to participants’ overall response patterns. Specifically, there was little variability in scores for the job suitability outcome. As was discussed earlier, it is possible that all candidates were readily viewed as qualified for the position for which they were being evaluated. Additionally, there was little incentive for participants to respond negatively given the lack of real-world consequences for either themselves or the fictitious candidate. Furthermore, common method bias may be a concern for both studies given that the data was collected from a single survey at one point in time. However, efforts were taken when designing the survey materials to prevent this issue. First, both studies assessed multiple outcomes that were measured using a variety of techniques. Study 1, for example, incorporated 100 several qualitative and quantitative measures, which were then examined for consistency in responses. Although Study 2 relied on scale measurements, different rating scales (e.g., unipolar, bipolar) were used to measure the key constructs. Another limitation of the present research is the selected samples. First, Study 1 relied on an undergraduate student sample that may not have been representative of the entire US population, especially considering the dynamic and political nature of the subject currently being investigated. Nevertheless, certain measures, such as instructing participants to answer based on what they believed others thought, were implemented partially to help alleviate this concern, in addition to ensuring the privacy of participants’ responses. Second, although Study 2 expanded on Study 1 by sampling full-time workers in the US, it should be emphasized that the sample was not restricted to individuals with hiring experience despite the scenario presented in the study. Therefore, caution is warranted if attempting to determine the extent to which these findings would replicate in an actual hiring scenario. Another limitation related to sampling is the timing of data collection, particularly for Study 1. Data collection for Study 1 began in May 2020, approximately four months after the World Health Organization announced the appearance of a coronavirus-related pneumonia in Wuhan, China, and two months after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency in the US (AJMC, 2021). Given the rise in xenophobic behaviors and hate crimes targeted towards those of Asian descent, which are thought to have resulted from the emergence and spread of the virus (e.g., Cabral, 2021, Escobar, 2020), there was a concern that the findings of the study would be heavily impacted by these recent events. However, results of the qualitative paragraph stereotyping measure indicated that COVID-19 was discussed in less than seven percent of responses (see Table 5) and therefore was not determined to be a substantial threat. Although the timing of data collection was a larger concern for Study 1, it 101 should be recognized that Study 2, which occurred from July to August 2020, still coincided with the pandemic. Future Directions Despite the limitations discussed, the present studies demonstrated numerous contributions to both theory and practice that can then be used to inform future research. One fruitful direction for future work would be to first consider the role of the current societal and political landscape on individuals’ attitudes towards immigration. The dynamic nature of the US’s immigration system, and particularly the potential for its heavy restructuring with presidential transitions, means that policies are continuously under debate, being revised, or implemented in practice. For example, the Biden Administration has committed itself to reducing barriers to immigration and increasing opportunities for foreign-born workers through the existing H-1B visa program (Shear & Kanno-Youngs, 2021). However, such plans cannot be guaranteed without the support of other governmental bodies and any changes to policy are likely to encounter some form of resistance. The visibility of these decisions as well as the rationale behind them provides individuals the opportunity to the form opinions on the matter, which may then be distorted if obscured by stereotypes and biases of a particular group. Boomgaarden and Vliegenthart (2009) found that the frequency and tone of coverage towards immigrant actors in news outlets significantly influenced the immigration attitudes of a German sample over time. More recently, Benesch et al. (2019) also found that mass media coverage of migration in Germany had a significant impact on immigration concerns and worry. Additional research on this subject would be useful in understanding how people form opinions towards immigrants of different groups and backgrounds, as well as how these opinions and attitudes develop or change over time in response to current events. Future work in this area may also 102 continue to inform the literature on intergroup conflict and threat (e.g., ITT, Stephan & Stephan, 2000; RGCT, Esses et al., 1998) given the perpetuating stereotypes of immigrants as posing competition and threatening the American in-group. Next, although these studies attempted to capture information pertaining to a range of different immigrant and ethnic groups, future work would benefit from greater investigation of perceptions and resulting behaviors when individuals cannot be visibly or otherwise clearly categorized. In a hiring scenario in particular, when availability of information for a candidate is often limited, individuals may use other cues to form an impression of the candidate. However, this automatic category-based processing (Fiske et al., 1999; Brewer & Feinstein, 1999) may face complications when a candidate presents either one or multiple identities that may not be clearly discerned, such as their ethnicity or national background. With the increase of individuals being born to parents of multiple races or ethnicities (Livingston, 2017), one interesting question pertains to the degree to which some demographic characteristics will remain a stigmatizing, or at least salient, characteristic attribute. Furthermore, other work may investigate the workplace experiences (e.g., interactions with colleagues) of those who identify as multiracial or multiethnic. Such research would greatly supplement the existing body of literature that has tended to view individuals from the perspective of a uniform or monolithic identity. Further expanding on the point of identity, it is important to emphasize that there is great heterogeneity in immigrants that come to the US and with that, a large amount of diversity in their experiences. There are several other factors, in addition to ethnicity or national origin, that would be beneficial to understand in greater detail. For example, immigrants arrive to their new country for varying reasons, which then affects the conditions and restrictions of their stay. The present research did not differentiate between the various different groups (e.g., resident 103 nonimmigrant, LPR, spouse vs. employment visa), but it is likely that the stipulations tied to one’s residency can drastically alter their experiences both in an employment setting, as well as integration into the host society overall. For example, future research may look to understand the impact of temporary versus permanent residency on immigrants’ attitudes in the workplace (e.g., organizational commitment). Further, although one aim of the present research was to examine the role of the job’s status in evaluating a candidate for the position, another potentially influential factor could be the candidate’s qualifications and work experiences. This leads into the issue of foreign qualification recognition (FQR). Employers may be hesitant to hire an employee if they are unsure of how to properly recognize and evaluate their foreign credentials and currently, this process is not overseen by a federal authority (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). When qualifications are not properly recognized, immigrant workers may experience negative outcomes such as unemployment or underemployment. Additional research is therefore needed to examine how these credentials are perceived and evaluated as they may signal a sense of unfamiliarity which then can negatively impact a candidate or influence an evaluator’s impression of the candidate. Signaling theory (see Connelly et al. 2011 for a review), which broadly focuses on the exchange of information between two parties, would prove useful for further investigation into FQR. Another set of factors that expand beyond the scope of the current research are those that would be apparent in an interpersonal setting, such as an interview. These might include language barriers and differences in cultural norms (e.g., eye contact, shaking hands) that could then negatively affect the interviewer’s impression of a candidate. Although there is previous work that has discussed interviewing from a cross-cultural perspective (e.g., Lim et al., 2006; Manroop et al., 2013), additional empirical work would provide important insights that could 104 impact various types of job seekers looking to work in a different country or cultural setting. Such research would benefit from integrating Manroop et al.’s (2013) model of cross-cultural differences on interview outcomes, which includes features such as verbal behavior, non-verbal behavior, and cultural background. Building on this discussion of interviews, this research also highlighted the influential role of raters’ individual differences (e.g., EMS) in evaluating job candidates. Rather than focusing exclusively on the characteristics of a candidate when seeking to demonstrate employment decisions under different circumstances (e.g., candidate’s ethnicity and gender), such research could be of greater explanatory and practical value when there is also an intentional focus on the rater attributes. For example, Study 2’s findings of four-way interactions involving characteristics of the candidate, job, and the rater highlight the need for future research to take a more comprehensive approach to capturing the sources of variation in candidate evaluations. This research may also help to answer additional interesting questions that seek to identify when membership to certain groups (e.g., immigrants) is a positive attribute. With the rise of globalization, employers may find great value in employees that have qualities or previous experiences, such as linguistic abilities or high levels of cultural intelligence, that would prepare them for success in more than one cultural environment. This knowledge could then be used to benefit not only immigrant job seekers or employees entering the U.S. workforce, but also contribute to the literature and practical applications of expatriate adjustment and global leadership. Conclusion In conclusion, the current research contributes to the existing literature on stereotyping and discrimination by identifying immigrant status and ethnicity as two distinct, influential 105 predictors of perceptions of and behaviors towards immigrants. Although it is not appropriate to infer causation given the present study design, there is evidence that contextual features such as perceived group status and competition contribute to individuals’ beliefs. Furthermore, findings emphasize the role of the individual characteristics, including motivation to respond non- prejudiced, of people who are in decision-making roles. Lastly, in addition to adopting an intersectional perspective to the immigrant identity, which to date has been lacking in the extant literature, the current research can be used to inform and advance work relating to realistic group conflict theory, integrated threat theory, and social identity theory. Immigrants are a vital segment of the U.S. population and workforce; seeking to understand how they are perceived and evaluated within an employment context presents great value to organizations and employees alike. 106 APPENDICES 107 APPENDIX A: Tables and Figures 108 Table 1. Summary of Hypotheses Study Hypothesis Hypothesis 1: Stereotypes of immigrant groups overall will be more negative than stereotypes of non- immigrant groups overall. Hypothesis 2: Stereotypes of ethnic groups overall will differ in negative content. Specifically, stereotypes of the Latinx and Middle Eastern groups will be more negative than stereotypes of the Asian group. Weaker Study 1 differences in negative stereotype content are expected between the Latinx and Middle Eastern groups. Hypothesis 3: There will be an interaction between immigrant status and ethnicity on negative stereotype content, such that the negative stereotype content for the immigrant and non-immigrant groups will be moderated by ethnicity. Specifically, the negative influence of status as an immigrant will be stronger for the Asian group compared to both the Latinx and Middle Eastern groups. Hypothesis 4a: Competence ratings will be lower for immigrant applicants compared to equally qualified non-immigrant applicants applying for the same job. Hypothesis 4b: There will be an interaction between applicant immigrant status and ethnicity on competence ratings, such that competence ratings for the immigrant and non-immigrant groups will be moderated by ethnicity. Specifically, the negative influence of status as an immigrant on competence ratings will be stronger for both the Chinese and Mexican groups compared to the Canadian group. Study 2 Hypothesis 5a: Warmth ratings will be lower for immigrant applicants compared to equally qualified non- immigrant applicants applying for the same job. Hypothesis 5b: There will be an interaction between applicant immigrant status and ethnicity on warmth ratings, such that warmth ratings for the immigrant and non-immigrant groups will be moderated by ethnicity. Specifically, the negative influence of status as an immigrant on warmth ratings will be stronger for both the Chinese and Mexican groups compared to the Canadian group. 109 Table 1 (cont’d). Hypothesis 6: Job suitability ratings will be lower for equally qualified immigrant (vs. non-immigrant) applicants applying for the same job; however, this effect will be qualified by an interaction between immigrant status and job status such that job suitability ratings for immigrant applicants will be lower for high-status positions. Weaker differences in job suitability ratings are expected for low-status positions. Hypothesis 7: Job suitability ratings will be lower for equally qualified Chinese and Mexican (vs. Canadian) applicants applying for the same job; however, this effect will be qualified by the interaction between ethnicity and job status such that job suitability ratings for Chinese and Mexican applicants will be lower for high-status positions. Weaker differences in job suitability ratings are expected for low-status positions. Hypothesis 8: There will be an interaction between applicant immigrant status and ethnicity on job suitability ratings for the same job, such that the job suitability ratings for the immigrant and non-immigrant groups will be moderated by ethnicity. Specifically, the negative influence of status as an immigrant on job suitability ratings will be stronger for both the Chinese and Mexican groups compared to the Canadian group. However, this joint effect of immigrant status and ethnicity will be qualified by job status, such that this effect will be stronger for high-status (vs. low-status) positions. 110 Table 2. Summary of Study 1 and Study 2 Experimental Conditions IV 1: Immigrant Status IV 2: Ethnicity 1. Non-Immigrant Asian 2. Non-Immigrant Latinx 3. Non-Immigrant Middle Eastern Study 1 4. Immigrant Asian 5. Immigrant Latinx 6. Immigrant Middle Eastern 7. Immigrant No Ethnicity Specified IV 1: Immigrant Status IV 2: Ethnicity IV 3: Job Status 1. Non-Immigrant Canadian Low 2. Non-Immigrant Canadian High 3. Non-Immigrant Chinese Low 4. Non-Immigrant Chinese High 5. Non-Immigrant Mexican Low 6. Non-Immigrant Mexican High Study 2 7. Immigrant Canadian Low 8. Immigrant Canadian High 9. Immigrant Chinese Low 10. Immigrant Chinese High 11. Immigrant Mexican Low 12. Immigrant Mexican High 111 Table 3. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations N M(SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 Negative 410 .87(.82) (.75) Stereotypes - P 2 Positive 410 .43(.68) -.31** (.74) Stereotypes - P 3 Negative 403 .31(.25) .50** -.33** (.74) Stereotypes - L 4 Positive 403 .25(.25) -.35** .44** -.57** (.75) Stereotypes - L 5 Negative 404 2.62(.87) .38** -.34** .62** -.48** (.95) Stereotypes - S 6 Positive 404 3.15(.74) -.37** .37** -.61** .53** -.66** (.90) Stereotypes - S 7 Knowledge 401 2.09(.92) .01 .01 .02 .02 .03 .11* - Rating 8 Competence 403 3.41(.88) -.28** .36** -.46** .47** -.39** .73** .11* (.85) 9 Warmth 403 2.74(.98) -.22** .19** -.46** .35** -.61** .73** .08 .47** (.91) 10 Status 403 3.12(1.16) -.39** .41** -.45** .41** -.43** .65** .04 .67** .33** (.93) 11 Competition 403 2.76(1.27) .19** -.17** .32** -.24** .55** -.39** .01 -.30** -.39** -.21** (.93) 12 Behavioral 401 3.64(1.00) -.12* .16** -.08 .14** .18** .09 .02 .29** -.22** .41** .29** (.90) Competence 13 Behavioral 401 3.31(.98) -.09 .12* -.03 .05 .07 -.04 -.04 .11* -.25** .25** .23** .61** (.91) Sociability 14 SDO Pro-Trait 400 1.95(1.19) -.01 -.01 -.04 -.02 .02 .02 -.06 -.01 .01 .00 .07 .16** .11* (.83) Dominance 15 SDO Con- 400 5.85(1.24) .07 .02 .08 -.05 -.02 -.02 .00 .01 -.01 -.02 .10* -.09 -.01 -.50** (.68) Trait Dominance 16 Pro-Trait Anti- 400 1.67(1.13) -.05 .06 -.06 .07 -.04 .02 -.10* .01 .01 .04 -.01 .06 .06 .60** -.40** (.84) SDO Egalitarianism 17 SDO Con- 399 6.50(.90) .05 -.09 .05 -.09 .01 .01 .07 -.03 .02 -.03 .00 -.11* -.08 -.60** .54** -.70** (.87) Trait Anti- Egalitarianism Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01. Excludes No Ethnicity ethnic condition. Mean of Positive/Negative Stereotypes - P/Perceptions is the average number of positive/negative themes present in the qualitative response (range = 0 to 3). Mean of Positive/Negative Stereotypes - L/List is the average proportion of positively/negatively valanced words of all words provided based on the categories in Table 3. Positive/Negative Stereotypes - S/Scale, Competence, Warmth, Status, and Competition rated on a 5-point scale. Behavioral competence and sociability rated on a 6-point scale. Pro/Con-Trait Dominance and Anti-Egalitarianism rated on a 7-point scale. Alpha coefficients are on the diagonal. 112 Table 4. Study 1 Positive/Negative Stereotype Scales Neutral Stereotypes Positive Stereotype Scale Negative Stereotype Scale (excluded from analyses) Hardworking Ignorant Happy-go-lucky Smart Arrogant Loud Friendly Prone to crime Religious Tolerant Raised in poverty Nationalistic Helpful Intolerant Macho Devoted to family Aggressive Fanatical Honest Likely to engage in terrorism Talkative Educated Lazy Values traditions Trustworthy Quick-tempered Passive Ambitious Revengeful Conservative Passionate Socially awkward Practical Scientifically-minded Materialistic Quiet Fun Stubborn Conformist Polite Untrustworthy Short Achievement-oriented Uneducated Modest Low-risk Exploited Exotic Dirty Sensitive Deceitful Competitive Cold Nerdy Rude Victims of discrimination Illegal Oppressed Showy Insensitive Thieves High-risk Snobbish Cheaters 113 Table 5. Study 1 Frequencies by Condition for Stereotypes - Paragraphs Codes Work Work Intelligence Intelligence Ethic Ethic Warmth Warmth Ethnic (+)a (-)b (+)a (-)b (+)a (-)b Extraversion Appearance Slur/Threatb N n n n n n n n n n Non-Immigrant Asian 72 40 0 11 0 2 10 2 8 3 Latinx 67 1 2 6 0 4 14 3 7 25 Middle Eastern 72 2 0 3 0 3 20 0 7 45 Non-Immigrant Total 211 43 2 20 0 9 44 5 22 73 Immigrant Asian 62 38 0 8 0 2 7 3 6 6 Latinx 66 0 3 10 9 4 8 3 3 34 Middle Eastern 71 1 0 1 0 2 27 2 3 51 No Ethnicity 73 0 2 9 4 4 23 0 5 37 Ethnicity identified Total* 199 39 3 19 9 8 42 8 12 91 Asian Total 134 78 0 19 0 4 17 5 14 9 Latinx Total 133 1 5 16 9 8 22 6 10 59 Middle Eastern Total 143 3 0 4 0 5 47 2 10 96 *Excludes No Ethnicity ethnic condition. Note. Themes coded as 1 = theme present, 0 = theme not present. Each cell frequency indicates the theme present sum. a. Denotes inclusion in positive stereotypes subscale. b. Denotes inclusion in negative stereotypes subscale. 114 Table 5 (cont’d). Ethnic/National High Low Other Government/ Subgroup Religious Outsider Statusa Statusb (+)a Other (-)b Politics COVID-19 N n n n n n n n n n Non-Immigrant Asian 72 9 1 16 14 2 0 6 1 12 Latinx 67 13 1 34 0 14 1 12 6 0 Middle Eastern 72 9 28 23 2 2 1 7 0 0 Non-Immigrant Total 211 31 30 73 16 18 2 25 7 12 Immigrant Asian 62 8 0 14 11 3 2 6 2 13 Latinx 66 6 2 25 0 15 4 14 6 1 Middle Eastern 71 3 26 15 1 0 1 13 3 0 No Ethnicity 73 0 1 42 0 3 4 14 5 0 Ethnicity identified Total* 199 17 28 54 12 18 7 33 11 14 Asian Total 134 17 1 30 25 5 2 12 3 25 Latinx Total 133 19 3 59 0 29 5 26 12 1 Middle Eastern Total 143 12 54 38 3 2 2 20 3 0 *Excludes No Ethnicity ethnic condition. Note. Themes coded as 1 = theme present, 0 = theme not present. Each cell frequency indicates the theme present sum. a. Denotes inclusion in positive stereotypes list subscale. b. Denotes inclusion in negative stereotypes list subscale. 115 Table 6. Study 1 Word Frequencies by Condition for Stereotypes - List Codes Intelligence Intelligence Work Ethic Work Ethic Warmth Warmth (+)a (-)b (+)a (-)b (+)a (-)b Extraversion Appearance N n n n n n n n n Non-Immigrant Asian 650 130 2 70 2 57 44 35 111 Latinx 659 8 18 43 15 93 53 31 47 Middle Eastern 663 18 4 17 5 39 188 27 45 Non-Immigrant Total 1972 156 24 130 22 189 285 93 203 Immigrant Asian 576 104 3 46 1 36 55 28 99 Latinx 615 6 27 50 25 75 77 22 50 Middle Eastern 683 12 7 19 6 48 173 19 30 No Ethnicity 718 11 24 83 29 81 80 9 27 Ethnicity identified Total* 1874 122 37 115 32 159 305 69 179 Asian Total 1226 234 5 116 3 93 99 63 210 Latinx Total 1274 14 45 40 40 130 130 53 97 Middle Eastern Total 1346 30 11 36 11 88 361 46 75 *Excludes No Ethnicity ethnic condition. a. Denotes inclusion in positive stereotypes list subscale. b. Denotes inclusion in negative stereotypes list subscale. 116 Table 6 (cont’d). Ethnic Ethnic/National High Low Slur/Threatb Subgroup Religious Outsider Statusa Statusb Other N n n n n n n n Non-Immigrant Asian 650 15 38 5 46 32 7 53 Latinx 659 66 76 9 98 2 52 40 Middle Eastern 663 75 46 59 91 15 14 46 Non-Immigrant Total 1972 156 160 73 235 49 73 139 Immigrant Asian 576 25 29 1 61 27 17 43 Latinx 615 72 31 8 79 4 45 41 Middle Eastern 683 107 20 68 89 8 22 52 No Ethnicity 718 109 14 4 156 1 42 47 Ethnicity identified Total* 1874 204 80 77 229 39 84 136 Asian Total 1226 40 67 6 107 59 24 96 Latinx Total 1274 138 107 17 177 6 97 81 Middle Eastern Total 1346 182 66 127 190 23 36 98 *Excludes No Ethnicity ethnic condition. a. Denotes inclusion in positive stereotypes subscale. b. Denotes inclusion in negative stereotypes subscale. 117 Table 7. Study 1 Top Five Frequent Stereotype Trait Words by Condition 1st Word(n) 2nd Word(n) 3rd Word(n) 4th Word(n) 5th Word(n) Non-Immigrant Asian Smart(55) Intelligent(19) Short(16) Chinese(13) Hardworking/Worker(25) Mexican/Mexican Latinx Hardworking/Worker(27) Poor(21) Loud(15) Lazy(13) American(19) Middle Eastern Terrorist/Terrorism(38) Muslim(25) Dangerous(14) Scary(14) Religious/Religion(14) Immigrant Asian Smart(43) Intelligent(15) Short(14) Small(11) Quiet(9) Latinx Hardworking/Worker(27) Illegal(23) Lazy(21) Dirty(14) Uneducated(11) Terrorist/Terrorist- Middle Eastern Muslim(28) Dangerous(21) Scary(20) Religious/Religion(18) Like/Terrorism(41) No Ethnicity Hardworking/Worker(36) Illegal(31) Foreign/Foreigner(22) Lazy(21) Poor(21) 118 Table 8. Study 1 Means and Standard Deviations by Condition for Negative Stereotypes – Paragraph/List/Scale, Competence, Warmth, Behavioral Competence, and Behavioral Sociability Qualitative Outcomes Quantitative Outcomes Negative Negative Negative Behavioral Behavioral Stereotypes - P Stereotypes - L Stereotypes - S Competence Warmth Competence Sociability N M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) Non-Immigrant Asian 65 .28(.48) .11(.12) 2.05(.55) 3.99(.63) 2.88(.74)a 4.13(1.02) 3.86(.94) Latinx 67 1.00(.87)a .31(.26)a 2.54(.78) 3.15(.87)a 3.05(1.00)a 3.00(.77) 2.55(.71) Middle Eastern 71 1.03(.72)a .39(.25)a 3.07(.84) 3.31(.69)a 2.36(1.03) 3.67(.90) 3.32(.96) Non-Immigrant Total 203 .78(.79) .27(.25) 2.57(.85) 3.48(.82) 2.75(.98) 3.60(1.01) 3.24(1.02) Immigrant Asian 60 .37(.61) .18(.14) 2.13(.53) 4.01(.73) 3.10(.88)a 4.40(.84) 3.94(.80) Latinx 65 1.25(.79)a .40(.28)a 2.74(.88)a 2.83(.74)a 2.85(.93)ab 3.02(.76)a 2.78(.82) Middle Eastern 70 1.30(.77)a .46(.27)a 3.11(.87)a 3.19(.92)a 2.28(.93)c 3.70(.90)b 3.47(.84)a No Ethnicity 73 1.14(.89)a .40(.25)a 2.85(.99)a 2.82(.98)a 2.60(1.10)bc 3.40(1.03)ab 3.39(.86)a Ethnicity Identified Total 195 .99(.84) .36(.27) 2.68(.88) 3.32(.94) 2.72(.98) 3.69(1.00) 3.38(.94) All Groups Total 268 1.03(.89) .37(.26) 2.73(.91) 3.19(.97) 2.69(1.01) 3.61(1.01) 3.39(.92) Asian Total 125 .32(.55) .14(.13) 2.08(.54) 4.00(.68) 2.99(.82) 4.26(.95) 3.90(.87) Latinx Total 132 1.12(.84)a .36(.26) 2.64(.84) 2.99(.82) 2.95(.97) 3.01(.76) 2.66(.77) Middle Eastern Total 141 1.16(.75)a .43(.26) 3.09(.85) 3.25(.81) 2.32(.98) 3.68(.89) 3.40(.90) Note. Means that do not share subscripts within each column are significantly different at the p < .05 level. Subscripts are not presented for the Non-Immigrant Total and Immigrant Total rows: non-immigrant and immigrant (excluding No Ethnicity condition) means for (1) Negative Stereotypes – P and (2) Negative Stereotypes – L are significantly different at the p < .01 level. 119 Table 9. Study 1 Planned Contrasts and Effect Sizes for Predicted Differences in Negative Stereotypes – Paragraph/List/Scale as a Function of Ethnicity Middle Effect Size of Asian Latinx Eastern Ethnicity M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) η2 95% CI Qualitative Negative Stereotypes - P .32(.54) 1.13(.84)a 1.15(.75)a .22 [.15, .29] Outcomes Negative Stereotypes - L .14(.13) .36(.27) .43(.26) .22 [.15, .28] Negative Stereotypes - S 2.08(.54) 2.65(.85) 3.09(.85) .23 [.16, .29] Competence 4.00(.67) 3.00(.83) 3.25(.81) .23 [.16, .29] Quantitative Warmth 3.00(.82)a .10 [.05, .16] 2.94(.97)a 2.32(.98) Outcomes Behavioral Competence 4.24(.95) 3.01(.76) 3.68(.89) .25 [.18, .31] Behavioral Sociability 3.89(.87) 2.66(.77) 3.40(.90) .26 [.19, .32] Note. Means that do not share subscripts within each row are significantly different at the p < .05 level using a priori planned contrasts. Negative Stereotypes – P ranges from 0 to 3. Negative Stereotypes – L ranges from 0 to 1. Negative Stereotypes – S, Competence, and Warmth measured on a 5-point scale. Behavioral competence and sociability measured on a 6-point scale. 120 Table 10. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations for Exploratory Analyses N M(SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 Negative 410 .87(.82) (.75) Stereotypes - P 2 Positive 410 .43(.68) -.31** (.74) Stereotypes - P 3 Negative 402 .31(.25) .50** -.33** (.74) Stereotypes - L 4 Positive 402 .25(.25) -.35** .44** -.57** (.75) Stereotypes - L 5 Negative 404 2.62(.87) .38** -.34** .62** -.48** (.95) Stereotypes - S 6 Positive 404 3.15(.74) -.37** .37** -.61** .53** -.66** (.90) Stereotypes - S 7 Knowledge 401 2.09(.92) .01 .01 .02 .02 .03 .11* - Rating 8 Competence 403 3.41(.88) -.28** .36** -.46** .47** -.39** .73** .11* (.85) 9 Warmth 403 2.74(.98) -.22** .19** -.46** .35** -.61** .73** .08 .47** (.91) 10 Status 403 3.12(1.16) -.39** .41** -.45** .41** -.43** .65** .04 .67** .33** (.93) 11 Competition 403 2.76(1.27) .19** -.17** .32** -.24** .55** -.39** .01 -.30** -.39** -.21** (.93) 12 Behavioral 401 3.64(1.00) -.12* .16** -.08 .14** .18** .09 .02 .29** -.22** .41** .29** (.90) Competence 13 Behavioral 401 3.31(.98) -.09 .12* -.03 .05 .07 -.04 -.04 .11* -.25** .25** .23** .61** (.91) Sociability 14 Age 414 19.42(2.47) -.08 -.01 -.08 .12* -.06 .01 .01 -.01 .03 -.03 -.04 -.07 .03 - 15 Gender 398 - -.01 -.06 .01 -.06 .05 -.03 .01 -.05 -.04 .01 .04 .02 .01 -.09 - 16 Non-Native Born 396 - .03 .03 .05 -.04 .04 .06 .20** .02 .06 .11* -.04 .15** .08 -.05 -.00 - Parent Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01. Excludes No Ethnicity ethnic condition. Mean of Positive/Negative Stereotypes - P/Perceptions is the average number of positive/negative themes present in the qualitative response (range = 0 to 3). Mean of Positive/Negative Stereotypes - L/List is the average proportion of positively/negatively valanced words of all words provided based on the categories in Table 3). Positive/Negative Stereotypes - S/Scale, Competence and Warmth rated on a 5-point scale. Behavioral competence and sociability rated on a 6-point scale. Age measured in years. 73.9% identified as a woman. 66.9% identified as White. 79.2% did not have a parent born outside of the US (coded 0 = no parent, 1 = at least one parent). Alpha coefficients are on the diagonal. 121 Table 11. Study 1 Means and Standard Deviations by Condition for Positive Stereotypes – Paragraph/List/Scale Qualitative Outcomes Quantitative Outcome Positive Positive Positive Stereotypes - Stereotypes – P Stereotypes - L S N M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) Non-Immigrant Asian 66 .94(.74) .46(.25) 3.60(.42) Latinx 67 .18(.49) .22(.21) 3.12(.70) Middle Eastern 71 .15(.47) .13(.17) 2.90(.67) Non-Immigrant Total 204 .42(.68) .27(.25) 3.20(.68) Immigrant Asian 60 .97(.76) .37(.23) 3.74(.39) Latinx 65 .28(.55) .22(.24) 2.81(.70) Middle Eastern 70 .09(.28) .13(.19) 2.79(.80) No Ethnicity 73 .23(.51) .24(.23) 2.75(.85) Ethnicity Identified Total* 195 .42(.66) .23(.24) 3.09(.79) All Groups Total 268 .37(.63) .24(.24) 3.00(.82) Asian Total 126 .95(.75) .41(.24) 3.67(.41) Latinx Total 132 .23(.52) .22(.23) 2.97(.72) Middle Eastern Total 141 .12(.67) .13(.18) 2.84(.74) *Excludes no ethnicity ethnic condition. Positive Stereotypes – P ranges from 0 to 3. Positive Stereotypes – L ranges from 0 to 1. Positive Stereotypes – S measured on a 5-point scale. 122 Table 12. Study 1 Exploratory Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparisons for Differences in Positive Stereotypes – Paragraph/List/Scale as a Function of Ethnicity Asian Latinx Middle Eastern No Ethnicity M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) Positive Stereotypes - P .95(.75) .23(.52)a .12(.39)a .23(.51)a Qualitative Outcomes Positive Stereotypes - L .41(.24) .22(.23)a .13(.18) .24(.23)a Quantitative Outcomes Positive Stereotypes - S 3.67(.41) 2.97(.72)a 2.84(.74)a 2.75(.85)a Note. Means that do not share subscripts within each row are significantly different at the p < .05 level using a post-hoc Tukey test. Positive Stereotypes – P ranges from 0 to 3. Positive Stereotypes – L ranges from 0 to 1. Positive Stereotypes – S measured on a 5- point scale. 123 Table 13. Study 1 Exploratory Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparisons for Differences in Positive Stereotypes – Scale as a Function of Immigrant Status and Ethnicity Asian Latinx Middle Eastern M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) Non-Immigrant 3.58(.46) 3.12(.70)a 2.90(.67)a Immigrant 3.74(.39) 2.81(.70)a 2.80(.10)a Note. Means that do not share subscripts within each row are significantly different at the p < .05 level using a post-hoc Tukey test. Positive Stereotypes – S measured on a 5-point scale. 124 Table 14. Study 1 Frequencies by Condition for Codes of Immigrant Definition Qualitative Responses Migration Recency of Migration Improving Documentation Duration of History Migration Purpose Conditions Survival Stereotype Status Citizenship Stay N n n n n n n n n n Non-Immigrant Asian 67 63 1 4 7 2 1 1 3 5 Latinx 66 62 0 8 25 7 5 3 7 4 Middle Eastern 70 64 0 9 12 2 5 3 7 5 Non-Immigrant Total 203 189 1 21 44 11 7 7 17 14 Immigrant Asian 60 57 0 6 13 0 3 4 8 2 Latinx 65 60 0 8 20 2 5 3 3 3 Middle Eastern 70 63 1 3 20 2 5 5 9 3 No Ethnicity 73 58 1 7 25 4 14 4 5 3 Ethnicity Identified Total* 195 180 1 17 53 4 13 12 20 8 Asian Total 127 120 1 10 20 2 4 5 11 7 Latinx Total 131 122 0 16 45 9 10 6 10 7 Middle Eastern Total 140 127 1 12 32 4 10 8 16 8 Overall Total* 398 369 2 38 97 15 24 19 37 22 Note. *Excludes No Ethnicity ethnic condition. Themes coded as 1 = theme present, 0 = theme not present. Each cell frequency indicates the theme present sum. Documentation Status, Citizenship, and Duration of Stay originally contained multiple subcategories but were grouped in 1 = theme present, 0 = theme not present based on the low n = 1 for each category. 125 Table 15. Study 1 Frequencies by Condition for Codes of Immigration Knowledge Qualitative Responses & Mean of Knowledge Rating Improving Migration/Visa Purpose Documentation Status Culture Other SES Conditions Multiple Work Education Other N n n n n n n n n Non-Immigrant Asian 66 25 2 1 3 10 8 2 0 Latinx 65 21 5 2 1 9 3 0 1 Middle Eastern 67 21 5 4 6 9 3 1 1 Non-Immigrant Total 198 67 12 7 10 28 14 3 2 Immigrant Asian 60 24 2 2 3 8 2 1 1 Latinx 66 25 9 1 5 12 4 1 1 Middle Eastern 69 24 4 0 7 10 6 0 0 No Ethnicity 70 26 2 4 6 16 2 1 1 Ethnicity Identified Total* 195 73 15 3 15 30 12 2 2 Asian Total 126 49 4 3 6 18 10 3 1 Latinx Total 131 46 14 3 6 21 7 1 2 Middle Eastern Total 136 45 9 4 13 19 9 1 1 Overall Total* 393 140 27 10 25 58 26 5 4 Note. *Excludes No Ethnicity ethnic condition. Themes coded as 1 = theme present, 0 = theme not present. Each cell frequency indicates the theme present sum. Knowledge rated on a 5-point scale. 126 Table 15 (cont’d). Survival Duration of Stay Citizenship Stereotype Knowledge Rating N n n n n N M(SD) Non-Immigrant Asian 66 0 13 9 0 67 2.30(.94) Latinx 65 1 13 12 1 67 2.09(.93) Middle Eastern 67 1 10 17 4 71 2.17(1.04) Non-Immigrant Total 205 2.19(.97) Immigrant Asian 60 1 7 11 1 60 1.95(.83) Latinx 66 0 19 21 1 66 2.11(.83) Middle Eastern 69 2 13 10 2 70 1.91(.88) No Ethnicity 70 0 15 14 1 73 2.11(.95) Ethnicity Identified Total* 196 1.99(.85) Asian Total 126 1 20 20 2 127 2.13(.90) Latinx Total 131 1 32 33 3 133 2.10(.88) Middle Eastern Total 136 3 23 27 6 141 2.04(.97) Overall Total* 393 4 75 80 11 401 2.09(.92) *Excludes No Ethnicity ethnic condition. Note. Themes coded as 1 = theme present, 0 = theme not present. Each cell frequency indicates the theme present sum. Knowledge was rated on a 5-point scale. 127 Table 16. Study 1 Means and Standard Deviations by Condition for Status and Competition Status Competition N M(SD) M(SD) Non-Immigrant Asian 68 4.16(.65) 2.48(1.21) Latinx 67 2.39(.88) 2.58(1.20) Middle Eastern 71 2.98(.93) 2.94(1.18) Non-Immigrant Total 206 3.18(1.10) 2.67(1.21) Immigrant Asian 60 4.23(.80) 2.63(1.22) Latinx 66 2.07(.74) 2.98(1.41) Middle Eastern 71 3.00(1.01) 2.93(1.32) Ethnicity Identified Total* 197 3.06(1.22) 2.86(1.32) Asian Total 128 4.19(.72) 2.55(1.21)a Latinx Total 133 2.23(.83) 2.78(1.32)ab Middle Eastern Total 142 2.99(.97) 2.94(1.25)b Note. *Excludes No Ethnicity ethnic condition. Means that do not share subscripts within each column for the ethnicity total cells are significantly different at the p < .05 level using a post-hoc Tukey test. Status and competition rated on a 5-point scale. 128 Table 17. Study 1 Exploratory Regression Model Predicting Negative Stereotypes – Scale/List, Positive Stereotypes – Paragraph/Scale, Competence, Warmth, Behavioral Competence, and Behavioral Sociability as a Function of Status, Competition, Immigrant Status, Ethnicity, and Their Interactions Negative Stereotypes – L Negative Stereotypes – S Variable b β t p 95% CI b β t p 95% CI Intercept .07 2.15 Status .05 .21 1.53 .13 [-.01, .11] .00 .00 .00 1.00 [-.17, .17] Competition .04 .18 1.14 .26 [-.03, .10] .33 .48 3.51 .00 [.14, .51] Immigrant Status .11 .20 2.29 .02 [.01, .20] .13 .07 .92 .36 [-.14, .39] Latinx .21 .37 3.70 .00 [.10, .31] .35 .19 2.15 .03 [.03, .66] Middle Eastern .29 .54 5.91 .00 [.20, .39] .82 .46 5.76 .00 [.54, 1.11] Immigrant Status X Latinx -.09 -.13 -1.13 .22 [-.24, .06] -.23 -.10 -1.06 .29 [-.66, .20] Immigrant Status X Middle Eastern -.01 -.01 -.12 .90 [.13, .11] -.05 -.02 -.27 .79 [-.39, .30] Status X Competition -.03 -.18 -1.12 .26 [-.08, .02] -.11 -.20 -1.44 .15 [-.27, .04] Immigrant Status X Status -.04 -.13 -1.46 .15 [-.09, .01] -.08 -.08 -1.04 .30 [-.24, .07] Immigrant Status X Competition .00 .01 .07 .95 [-.04, .04] -.02 -.02 -.35 .72 [-.14, .10] Latinx X Status -.12 -.26 -3.30 .00 [-.19, -.05] -.24 -.17 -2.30 .02 [-.44, -.03] Middle Eastern X Status -.12 -.26 -3.44 .00 [-.18, -.05] -.17 -.12 -1.78 .08 [-.37, .02] Latinx X Competition .02 .06 .59 .55 [-.05, .10] .15 .13 1.32 .19 [-.07, .36] Middle Eastern X Competition .01 .04 .38 .70 [-.05, .08] -.04 -.03 -.38 .71 [-.23, .16] Immigrant Status X Status X .02 .07 .63 .53 [-.03, .07] .08 .10 1.01 .31 [.02, .45] Competition Latinx X Status X Competition .03 .09 .67 .50 [-.05, .10] .24 .27 2.17 .03 [.02, .45] Middle Eastern X Status X .01 .03 .25 .80 [-.06, .08] .02 .02 .19 .85 [-.18, .22] Competition Immigrant Status X Latinx X .02 .05 .44 .66 [-.07, .10] -.14 -.12 -1.14 .26 [-.39, .10] Status X Competition Immigrant Status X Middle .04 .10 1.05 .29 [-.04, .12] .03 .02 .26 .80 [-.19, .25] Eastern X Status X Competition R2 .39 .53 Adjusted R2 .36 .51 Note. Immigrant status coded 1 = Immigrant, 0 = Non-Immigrant. Latinx coded 1 = Latinx, 0 = Not Latinx. Middle Eastern coded 1 = Middle Eastern, 0 = Not Middle Eastern. Negative Stereotypes – L ranges from 0 to 1. Negative/Positive Stereotypes – S measured on a 5-point scale. Competition and Status grand mean centered and rated on a 5-point scale. Positive Stereotypes – P ranges from 0 to 3. Behavioral sociability and behavioral competence rated on a 6-point scale. 129 Table 17 (cont’d). Positive Stereotypes – P Positive Stereotypes – S Variable b β t p 95% CI b β t p 95% CI Intercept .76 3.43 Status .16 .28 2.05 .04 [.01, .32] .14 .22 1.98 .05 [.00, .28] Competition .07 .13 .78 .43 [-.10, .24] -.04 -.06 -.49 .62 [-.18, .11] Immigrant Status -.03 -.02 -.20 .84 [-.27, .22] .14 .09 1.23 .22 [-.08, .35] Latinx -.61 -.43 -4.17 .00 [-.90, -.32] -.03 -.02 -.20 .84 [-.28, .23] Middle Eastern -.63 -.45 -4.77 .00 [-.88, -.37] -.50 -.33 -4.36 .00 [-.73, -.28] Immigrant Status X Latinx .22 .12 1.09 .28 [-.17, .61] -.25 -.13 -1.41 .16 [-.59, .10] Immigrant Status X Middle Eastern -.05 -.03 -.31 .75 [-.37, .26] -.22 -.11 -1.54 .13 [-.49, .06] Status X Competition -.20 -.45 -2.80 .01 [-.40, .26] .00 .01 .06 .96 [-.12, .13] Immigrant Status X Status .03 .04 .47 .64 [-.11, .17] -.01 -.01 -.12 .91 [-.12, .13] Immigrant Status X Competition .01 .01 .15 .88 [-.10, .12] -.06 -.07 -1.13 .26 [-.15, .04] Latinx X Status -.12 -.12 -1.30 .19 [-.31, .06] .30 .26 3.62 .00 [.14, .46] Middle Eastern X Status -.11 -.09 -1.23 .22 [-.28, .07] .35 .28 4.49 .00 [.20, .51] Latinx X Competition -.20 -.23 -2.01 .05 [-.40, -.00] -.10 -.10 -1.11 .27 [-.27, .08] Middle Eastern X Competition -.08 -.08 -.85 .39 [-.25, .10] -.08 -.08 -.96 .34 [-.23, .08] Immigrant Status X Status X .13 .24 1.98 .05 [.00, .27] .02 .04 .37 .71 [-.10, .14] Competition Latinx X Status X Competition .10 .14 .98 .33 [-.10, .30] -.01 -.01 -.08 .93 [-.18, .17] Middle Eastern X Status X .17 .21 1.84 .07 [-.01, .36] -.10 -.12 -1.25 .21 [-.27, .06] Competition Immigrant Status X Latinx X -.09 -.10 -.79 .43 [-.31, .13] -.03 -.03 -.29 .77 [-.23, .17] Status X Competition Immigrant Status X Middle -.14 -.13 -1.40 .16 [-.35, .06] .03 .02 .32 .75 [-.15, .21] Eastern X Status X Competition R2 .35 .58 Adjusted R2 .32 .56 130 Table 17 (cont’d). Competence Warmth Variable b β t p 95% CI b β t p 95% CI Intercept 3.46 2.92 Status .47 .62 5.16 .00 [.29, .65] -.02 -.03 -.22 .83 [-.24, .20] Competition .00 .00 .00 1.00 [-.19, .19] -.02 -.03 -.20 .85 [-.26, .21] Immigrant Status .02 .01 .13 .90 [-.26, .30] .31 .16 1.80 .07 [-.03, .65] Latinx -.07 -.04 -.40 .69 [-.40, .26] .54 .26 2.63 .01 [.14, .94] Middle Eastern -.16 -.09 -1.11 .27 [-.46, .13] -.46 -.23 -2.52 .01 [-.82, -.10] Immigrant Status X Latinx -.19 -.08 -.86 .39 [-.64, .25] -.37 -.14 -1.33 .18 [-.91, .18] Immigrant Status X Middle Eastern -.10 -.05 -.58 .57 [-.46, .25] -.46 -.18 -2.06 .04 [-.90, -.02] Status X Competition .03 .06 .38 .70 [-.13, .19] -.10 -.16 -1.00 .32 [-.30, .10] Immigrant Status X Status -.06 -.06 -.75 .46 [-.22, .10] -.10 -.09 -1.02 .31 [-.30, .09] Immigrant Status X Competition -.15 -.15 -2.29 .02 [-.27, -.02] -.06 -.06 -.79 .43 [-.22, .09] Latinx X Status -.02 -.02 -.22 .83 [-.23, .19] .63 .41 4.81 .00 [.37, .89] Middle Eastern X Status .00 .00 .03 .98 [-.20, .20] .59 .35 4.76 .00 [.35, .84] Latinx X Competition -.18 -.15 -1.58 .12 [-.40, .04] -.17 -.13 -1.23 .22 [-.45, .10] Middle Eastern X Competition -.07 -.06 -.67 .50 [-.27, .13] -.17 -.13 -1.33 .18 [-.41, .08] Immigrant Status X Status X .08 .11 1.06 .29 [-.07, .23] .06 .07 .62 .54 [-.13, .25] Competition Latinx X Status X Competition -.00 -.00 -.01 .99 [-.23, .22] .12 .12 .85 .40 [-.16, .39] Middle Eastern X Status X -.12 -.11 -1.10 .27 [-.33, .09] .06 .05 .47 .64 [-.20, .32] Competition Immigrant Status X Latinx X -.27 -.22 -2.05 .04 [-.52, -.01] -.13 -.10 -.82 .41 [-.44, .18] Status X Competition Immigrant Status X Middle -.02 -.01 -.17 .87 [-.25, .21] -.16 -.10 -1.11 .27 [-.44, .12] Eastern X Status X Competition R2 .51 .40 Adjusted R2 .48 .37 131 Table 17 (cont’d). Behavioral Competence Behavioral Sociability Variable b β t p 95% CI b β t p 95% CI Intercept 3.66 3.70 Status .51 .59 4.47 .00 [.29, .73] .20 .24 1.78 .08 [-.02, .43] Competition .40 .50 3.23 .00 [.16, .63] .19 .25 1.61 .11 [-.04, .43] Immigrant Status .26 .13 1.50 .14 [-.08, .61] .05 .03 .27 .79 [-.30, .40] Latinx -.50 -.23 -2.40 .02 [-.90, -.09] -1.20 -.58 -5.77 .00 [-1.61, -.79] Middle Eastern -.11 -.05 -.60 .55 [-.47, .25] -.44 -.22 -2.40 .02 [-.81, -.08] Immigrant Status X Latinx -.39 -.15 -1.40 .16 [-.94, .16] .10 .04 .36 .72 [-.45, .66] Immigrant Status X Middle Eastern -.21 -.08 -.91 .37 [-.65, .24] .01 .00 .04 .97 [-.44, .46] Status X Competition -.04 -.06 -.38 .71 [-.24, .16] .11 .17 1.03 .30 [-.10, .31] Immigrant Status X Status -.08 -.07 -.80 .42 [-.28, .12] -.01 -.00 -.05 .96 [-.21, .20] Immigrant Status X Competition -.05 -.04 -.60 .55 [-.20, .11] .13 .12 1.60 .11 [-.30, .28] Latinx X Status -.37 -.23 -2.28 .01 [-.63, -.11] -.31 -.20 -2.31 .02 [-.57, -.05] Middle Eastern X Status -.34 -.19 -2.65 .01 [-.58, -.09] -.43 -.25 -3.35 .00 [-.68, -.18] Latinx X Competition .01 .01 .10 .92 [-.26, .29] -.04 -.03 -.31 .75 [-.32, .23] Middle Eastern X Competition -.15 -.11 -1.02 .23 [-.40, .10] -.14 -.10 -1.07 .28 [-.38, .11] Immigrant Status X Status X -.02 -.03 -.25 .81 [-.21, .17] -.21 -.26 -2.18 .03 [-.40, -.02] Competition Latinx X Status X Competition .21 .20 1.46 .15 [-.07, .49] -.03 -.03 -.24 .81 [-.32, .25] Middle Eastern X Status X -.08 -.07 -.62 .53 [-.35, .18] -.13 -.11 -.99 .32 [-.40, .13] Competition Immigrant Status X Latinx X -.02 -.02 -.14 .89 [-.45, .29] .33 .24 2.01 .05 [.00, .64] Status X Competition Immigrant Status X Middle .09 .06 .63 .53 [-.20, .38] .10 .07 .71 .48 [-.19, .39] Eastern X Status X Competition R2 .42 .39 Adjusted R2 .39 .36 . 132 Table 18. Pilot Study 2 Pairwise Comparisons for Differences in (a) Job Characteristics as a Function of Job Status and (b) Candidate Characteristics as a Function of Status and Ethnicity Admin Job (N = 38) Manager Job (N = 41) M(SD) M(SD) t(df) Perceived Job Status 3.71(1.39) 5.05(.87) 5.08(61)*** Skill Required 4.08(1.42) 5.54(.95) 5.31(64)*** Education Required 3.61(1.41) 5.10(1.46) 4.62(77)*** Cognitive Demand 4.53(1.20) 5.46(1.08) 3.66(77)*** Required External Contact 5.53(1.13) 5.37(1.45) .55(77) Required Low Status Candidate High Status (N = 38) Candidate (N = 41) M(SD) M(SD) t(df) Job-Related Skill 5.87(1.23) 5.95(.95) .34(77) Education Level 4.24(1.58) 5.78(.99) 5.15(61)*** Writing Quality 5.11(1.06) 5.15(1.11) .17(77) Grammar Quality 5.11(.98) 5.39(1.07) 1.23(77) Vocabulary Quality 5.13(1.10) 5.07(1.15) .23(77) Overall Profile Presentation 5.47(1.11) 5.41(1.05) .24(77) Qualified for Status- 4.84(1.22) 4.78(1.06) .24(77) Appropriate Job Qualified for Status- 2.82(1.09) 5.10(1.69) 7.20(69)*** Inappropriate Job Canadian (N = 27) Chinese (N = 28) Mexican (N = 23) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) Age 26.29(2.41)a 23.74(2.61) 26.96(3.77)a Attractiveness 4.52(.80) 3.52(1.12)a 3.83(1.03)a Note. *** p < .001. Perceived Job Status, Skill, Education, Cognitive Demand, External Contact Required, Job-Related Skill, Education Level, Writing, Grammar, and Vocabulary Quality, and Overall Profile Presentation rated on a 7-point scale (Very low to Very high). Qualified for Status-Appropriate and Inappropriate Jobs rated on a 7-point scale (Very unqualified to Very overqualified). Age presented in years. Attractiveness rated on a 7-point scale (Very unattractive to Very attractive). Means that do not share subscripts within each row are significantly different at the p < .05 level using a post-hoc Tukey test. 133 Table 19. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations N M(SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 Competence 647 6.22(.92) (.94) 2 Warmth 647 5.84(1.08) .67** (.93) 3 Job Suitability 648 4.08(.59) .58** .51** (.87) 4 Symbolic 648 2.10(1.05) -.16** -.08 -.12** (.94) Threat 5 Realistic Threat 648 2.22(1.09) -.15** -.09* -.12** .83** (.94) 6 Prejudice 648 2.59(.84) -.14** -.07 -.15** .71** .70** (.83) (Group Specific) 7 Xenophobia 648 2.86(1.36) -.13** -.04 -.12** .69** .70** .68** (.95) 8 Social Distance 648 7.85(5.08) -.09* -.04 -.13** .37** .34** .27** .36** - – Non- Immigrant 9 Social Distance 648 8.59(5.61) -.10** -.06 -.15** .38** .37** .31** .40** .90** - – Immigrant 10 Social Distance 648 5.05(3.43) -.06 -.03 -.10* .28** .26** .20** .29** .92** .89** - - Canadian 11 Social Distance 648 5.71(3.80) -.11** -.06 -.15** .40** .38** .31** .39** .93** .95** .84** - - Chinese 12 Social Distance 648 5.67(3.74) -.12** -.05 -.16** .41** .39** .33** .43** .92** .94** .82** .90** - - Mexican 13 Knowledge 642 2.58(1.19) -.08* -.03 .06 .16** .16** .05 .09* .14** .14** .11** .15** .15** - 14 Acculturation 648 3.20(.88) .07 .02 .06 .04 .05 -.05 .05 .05 .04 .05 .04 .03 .10* (.82) 15 EMS 648 3.82(1.45) -.06 -.06 -.03 .23** .22** .16** .16** .10* .13** .08* .13** .11** .00 .17** (.83) 16 IMS 648 5.59(1.26) .15** .06 .10** -.39** -.33** -.34** -.45** -.33** -.32** -.24** -.33** -.37** -.07 .06 -.05 (.82) 17 SDS 648 10.21(3.44) .07 .12** .11** .09* .09* .09* .09* .07 .08 .06 .07 .09* .17** -.03 -.10** -.01 (.77) Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01. Competence and Warmth rated on a 7-point bipolar scale (e.g., 1 = Incompetent, 7 = Competent). Job Suitability, Acculturation, and Knowledge rated on a 5-point scale. Symbolic Threat, Realistic Threat, and Prejudice rated on a 5-point scale. Xenophobia rated on a 6-point scale. EMS, IMS, and SDS rated on a 7-point scale. Alpha coefficients are on the diagonal. 134 Table 20. Study 2 Means and Standard Deviations by Condition for Competence, Warmth, and Job Suitability Low Job Status (N = 374) High Job Status (N = 273) Overall (N = 647) Competence Warmth Job Suitability Competence Warmth Job Suitability Competence Warmth Job Suitability N M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) Non-Immigrant Canadian 101 6.13(1.02) 5.80(1.07) 4.05(.52) 6.22(.88) 5.65(1.13) 4.03(.69) 6.16(.96) 5.74(1.09) 4.04(.59) Chinese 118 6.07(1.12) 5.92(1.18) 4.16(.56) 6.46(.69) 5.94(.97) 4.26(.52) 6.26(.96) 5.93(1.08) 4.21(.54) Mexican 105 6.17(1.03) 5.92(1.30) 4.11(.60) 6.25(.75) 5.94(.98) 4.18(.52) 6.20(.92) 5.93(1.18) 4.14(.57) Non-Immigrant Total 324 6.12(1.05) 5.87(1.12) 4.11(.56) 6.33(.77) 5.86(1.02) 4.17(.58) 6.21(.95) 5.87(1.12) 4.13(.57) Immigrant Canadian 102 6.18(.73) 5.82(.96) 3.99(.49) 6.12(1.12) 5.67(1.00) 3.99(.63) 6.15(.92) 5.75(.98) 3.99(.56) Chinese 116 6.25(.86) 5.79(1.03) 4.05(.65) 6.29(.73) 5.54(.97) 3.94(.54) 6.26(.80) 5.69(1.01) 4.01(.61) Mexican 105 6.18(1.13) 6.02(1.18) 4.09(.70) 6.35(.65) 5.96(.98) 4.12(.60) 6.25(.96) 6.00(1.10) 4.10(.66) Immigrant Total 323 6.21(.92) 5.81(1.03) 4.04(.62) 6.25(.86) 5.72(.99) 4.01(.59) 6.22(.89) 5.81(.99) 4.03(.61) Canadian Total 203 6.15(.89) 5.81(1.02) 4.02(.51) 6.17(1.01) 5.66(1.06) 4.01(.65) 6.16(.94) 5.75(1.03) 4.02(.57) Chinese Total 234 6.16(.99) 5.85(1.10) 4.10(.61) 6.38(.71) 5.76(.98) 4.12(.55) 6.26(.88) 5.81(1.05) 4.11(.58) Mexican Total 210 6.17(1.07) 5.97(1.24) 4.10(.65) 6.30(.70) 5.95(.97) 4.15(.56) 6.23(.94) 5.96(1.14) 4.12(.62) Note. Means for each outcome (competence, warmth, job suitability) across immigrant status and ethnic groups (non-immigrant, immigrant, combined) are not statistically different when including appropriate covariates based on Table 15. Competence and warmth rated on a 7-point bipolar scale (e.g., 1 = incompetent, 7 = competent). Job suitability rated on a 5-point scale. 135 Table 21. Study 2 Results for Differences in Candidate Competence as a Function of Immigrant Status, Ethnicity, and Covariates (Prejudice, Xenophobia, IMS) Competence F p Partial η2 R2 = .03; F(8,638) = 2.747, p < .01 Intercept 30049.23 .00 .979 Prejudice 2.36 .13 .004 Xenophobia .14 .70 .000 IMS 6.59 .01 .010 Immigrant Status .09 .76 .000 Ethnicity .63 .53 .002 Immigrant Status X Ethnicity .17 .84 .001 Note. Competence rated on a 7-point bipolar scale (e.g., 1 = incompetent, 7 = competent). Job suitability rated on a 5-point scale. Prejudice rated on a 5-point scale. Xenophobia centered and rated on a 6-point scale. IMS rated on a 7-point scale. 136 Table 22. Study 2 Results for Differences in Candidate Warmth as a Function of Immigrant Status, Ethnicity, and Covariates (SDS) Warmth F p Partial η2 R2 = .024; F(6,640) = 2.631, p < .05 Intercept 19284.54 .000 .968 SDS 8.12 .01 .013 Immigrant Status .25 .62 .000 Ethnicity 1.96 .14 .006 Immigrant Status X Ethnicity 1.08 .34 .003 Note. Warmth rated on a 7-point bipolar scale (e.g., 1 = incompetent, 7 = competent). SDS dummy-coded, 0 = false, 1 = true. 137 Table 23. Study 2 Results for Differences in Candidate Job Suitability as a Function of Immigrant Status, Ethnicity, Job Status, and Covariates (Prejudice, Xenophobia, IMS, SDS) Job Suitability F p Partial η2 R2 = .054; F(15,632) = 2.422, p < .01 Intercept 30572.10 .00 .980 Prejudice 3.49 .06 .005 Xenophobia .26 .61 .000 IMS 2.62 .11 .004 SDS 7.96 .01 .012 Immigrant Status 3.38 .07 .005 Ethnicity .87 .42 .003 Job Status .03 .86 .000 Immigrant Status X Ethnicity 1.40 .25 .004 Immigrant Status X Job Status .98 .32 .002 Immigrant Status X Ethnicity X Job Status .29 .75 .001 Note. Job suitability rated on a 5-point scale. Prejudice rated on a 5-point scale. Xenophobia centered and rated on a 6-point scale. IMS rated on a 7-point scale. SDS dummy-coded, 0 = false, 1 = true. 138 Table 24. Study 2 Frequencies for Codes of Immigration Knowledge Qualitative Responses & Mean of Knowledge Rating Knowledge Category % n Migration/Visa Purpose Not Discussed 41.8 269 Multiple Discussed 35.2 227 Employment 10.7 69 Other Purpose (Not Specified) 8.9 57 Education 1.2 8 Asylum/Refugee 0.9 6 Family 0.6 4 Temporary Travel 0.6 4 Duration of Stay 19.7 127 Documentation Status 13.8 89 Citizenship 12.1 78 Culture 4.7 30 Improving Conditions 3.1 20 Stereotype 2.5 16 Survival 0.9 6 Other SES 0.6 4 M(SD) Knowledge Rating 2.58(1.19) N = 644 139 Table 25. Study 2 Exploratory Hierarchical Regression Model Predicting Job Suitability as a Function of Study 2 Covariates, Competence, Warmth, Immigrant Status, and Their Interactions Job Suitability Variable Final Model b β t p 95% CI Intercept 4.11 SDS .01 .05 1.70 .09 [-.00, .02] IMS .00 .00 -.01 .99 [-.03, .03] Xenophobia -.01 -.01 -.24 .81 [-.04, .03] Prejudice -.05 -.06 -1.49 .14 [-.10, .01] Competence .16 .26 3.22 .00 [.06, .26] Warmth .15 .28 3.32 .00 [.06, .24] Immigrant Status -.06 -.05 -1.29 .20 [-.16, .03] Immigrant Status X Competence .12 .12 1.59 .11 [-.03, .26] Immigrant Status X Warmth .03 .03 .42 .68 [-.10, .15] Job Status .02 .02 .35 .73 [-.09, .12] Immigrant Status X Job Status -.06 -.04 -.79 .43 [-.21, .09] Competence X Job Status .13 .12 1.50 .14 [-.04, .30] Warmth X Job Status -.02 -.03 -.33 .74 [-.16, .11] Immigrant Status X Competence -.04 -.03 -.34 .74 [-.26, .19] X Job Status Immigrant Status X Warmth -.13 -.10 -1.34 .18 [-.31, .06] X Job Status R2 .40 Adjusted R2 .38 ΔR2 .00 Note. SDS, IMS, Xenophobia, Competence, and Warmth grand-mean centered. Immigrant status coded 1 = immigrant, 0 = non-immigrant. Job status coded 1 = high status, 0 = low status. 140 Table 26. Study 2 Exploratory Results for Differences in Candidate Warmth as a Function of SDS, Immigrant Status, Ethnicity, IMS, EMS, and Their Interactions Warmth Variable Final Model b β t p 95% CI Intercept 5.69 SDS .03 .10 2.60 .01 [.01, .06] IMS .18 .20 1.88 .06 [-.01, .36] EMS -.01 -.01 -.07 .94 [-.15, .14] Immigrant Status .08 .04 .55 .56 [-.21, .38] Chinese .31 .14 2.05 .04 [.01, .60] Mexican .22 .10 1.46 .15 [-.08, .51] Immigrant Status X Chinese -.37 -.13 -1.77 .08 [-.78, .04] Immigrant Status X Mexican -.02 -.01 -.08 .93 [-.43, .40] Immigrant Status X IMS -.12 -.10 -.96 .34 [-.36, .13] Chinese X IMS .04 .03 .33 .74 [-.22, .31] Mexican X IMS -.16 -.11 -1.36 .18 [-.39, .07] Immigrant Status X EMS -.09 -.09 -.86 .39 [-.30, .12] Chinese X EMS .02 .02 .19 .85 [-.18, .22] Mexican X EMS -.12 -.10 -1.19 .24 [-.32, .08] Immigrant Status X Chinese X [-.44, .24] -.10 -.05 -.57 .57 IMS Immigrant Status X Mexican X [-.21, .45] .13 .06 .74 .46 IMS Immigrant Status X Chinese X [-.29, .28] -.00 -.00 -.02 .99 EMS Immigrant Status X Mexican X [.09, .66] .38 .21 2.58 .01 EMS R2 .05 Adjusted R2 .03 Note. SDS, IMS, and EMS grand-mean centered. Immigrant status coded 1 = immigrant, 0 = non-immigrant. Chinese coded 1 = Chinese, 0 = not Chinese. Mexican coded 1 = Mexican, 0 = not Mexican. Job status coded 1 = high status, 0 = low status. 141 Table 27. Study 2 Exploratory Results for Differences in Candidate Job Suitability as a Function of SDS, Immigrant Status, Ethnicity, IMS, EMS, and Their Interactions Job Suitability Variable Final Model b β t p 95% CI Intercept 4.01 SDS .02 .10 2.53 .01 [.00, .03] IMS .11 .23 1.47 .14 [-.04, .25] EMS .02 .05 .34 .74 [-.09, .13] Immigrant Status .01 .00 .04 .97 [-.22, .23] Chinese .16 .13 1.46 .15 [-.06, .39] Mexican .11 .09 1.04 .30 [-.10, .33] Immigrant Status X Chinese -.12 -.08 -.81 .42 [-.43, .18] Immigrant Status X Mexican -.05 -.03 -.32 .75 [-.35, .25] Immigrant Status X IMS -.05 -.08 -.58 .56 [-.23, .13] Chinese X IMS -.05 -.07 -.53 .60 [-.25, .15] Mexican X IMS -.16 -.20 -1.78 .08 [-.33, .02] Immigrant Status X EMS .06 .11 .81 .42 [-.09, .21] Chinese X EMS .01 .02 .19 .85 [-.13, .16] Mexican X EMS .01 .01 .08 .94 [-.14, .16] Immigrant Status X Chinese X [-.23, .26] .02 .02 .14 .89 IMS Immigrant Status X Mexican X [-.13, .36] .12 .09 .93 .35 IMS Immigrant Status X Chinese X [-.40, .01] -.20 -.20 -1.88 .06 EMS Immigrant Status X Mexican X [-.30, .11] -.10 -.10 -.93 .35 EMS Job Status .02 .02 .19 .85 [-.22, .27] Immigrant Status X Job Status -.02 -.01 -.11 .91 [-.35, .31] Chinese X Job Status .08 .05 .45 .66 [-.26, .41] Mexican X Job Status .03 .02 .18 .86 [-.30, .37] High Status X IMS .01 .02 .12 .91 [-.20, .22] High Status X EMS .03 .05 .37 .71 [-.13, .19] Note. SDS, IMS, and EMS grand-mean centered. Immigrant status coded 1 = immigrant, 0 = non-immigrant. Chinese coded 1 = Chinese, 0 = not Chinese. Mexican coded 1 = Mexican, 0 = not Mexican. Job status coded 1 = high status, 0 = low status. 142 Table 27 (cont’d). Job Suitability Variable Final Model b β t p 95% CI Immigrant Status X Chinese X -.23 -.10 -.98 .33 [-.69, .23] Job Status Immigrant Status X Mexican X .00 .00 .01 .99 [-.46, .47] Job Status Immigrant Status X Job Status .17 .16 1.23 .22 [-.10, .45] X IMS Immigrant Status X Job Status -.23 -.24 -1.94 .05 [-.45, .00] X EMS Chinese X Job Status X IMS .03 .02 .19 .85 [-.27, .33] Mexican X Job Status X IMS .12 .10 .91 .37 [-.14, .38] Chinese X Job Status X EMS -.07 .02 .19 .85 [-.29, .14] Mexican X Job Status X EMS -.21 -.19 -1.87 .06 [-.44, .01] Immigrant Status X Chinese X -.16 -.08 -.77 .44 [-.55, .24] Job Status X IMS Immigrant Status X Mexican X -.29 -.16 -1.56 .12 [-.67, .08] Job Status X IMS Immigrant Status X Chinese X .47 .30 2.91 .00 [.15, .78] Job Status X EMS Immigrant Status X Mexican X .49 .29 2.98 .00 [.17, .81] Job Status X EMS R2 .10 Adjusted R2 .04 Note. SDS, IMS, and EMS grand-mean centered. Immigrant status coded 1 = immigrant, 0 = non-immigrant. Chinese coded 1 = Chinese, 0 = not Chinese. Mexican coded 1 = Mexican, 0 = not Mexican. Job status coded 1 = high status, 0 = low status. 143 Table 28. Study 2 Means and Standard Deviations by Social Group for Perceived Social Distance Social Distance (N = 648) . M(SD) Non-Immigrant Canadian 2.40(1.72) Chinese 2.76(1.90) Mexican 2.69(1.84) Non-Immigrant Total 2.62(1.69) Immigrant Canadian 2.65(1.88) Chinese 2.95(2.03) Mexican 2.98(2.03) Immigrant Total 2.86(1.87) Canadian Total 2.53(1.71) Chinese Total 2.86(1.90) Mexican Total 2.83(1.87) Note. Social Distance rated on 7-point scale (1 = As family members by marriage, 4 = As coworkers in my workgroup, 7 = Prefer not to accept members of this group in my country). Mean differences between Non-Immigrant and Immigrant statistically significant, p < .01, d = .13. Mean differences between Canadian and Chinese, and Canadian and Mexican, statistically significant, p < .001. 144 Figure 1. Expected Immigrant Status X Ethnicity Interaction for Negative Stereotypes 90 80 70 Negative Stereotypes 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Non-Immigrant Immigrant Asian Latinx Middle Eastern 145 Figure 2. Expected Immigrant Status X Ethnicity Interaction for Competence 5 4 Competence 3 2 1 Non-Immigrant Immigrant Canadian Chinese Mexican 146 Figure 3. Expected Immigrant Status X Ethnicity Interaction for Warmth 5 4 Warmth 3 2 1 Non-Immigrant Immigrant Canadian Chinese Mexican 147 Figure 4. Expected Immigrant Status X Job Status Interaction for Job Suitability 5 4 Job Suitability 3 2 1 Low Status High Status Non-Immigrant Immigrant 148 Figure 5. Expected Ethnicity X Job Status Interaction for Job Suitability 5 4 Job Suitability 3 2 1 Low Status High Status Canadian Chinese Mexican 149 Figure 6. Expected Immigrant Status X Ethnicity Interaction for Job Suitability (All Jobs) 5 4 Job Suitability 3 2 1 Non-Immigrant Immigrant Canadian Chinese Mexican 150 Figure 7. Expected Immigrant Status X Ethnicity Interaction for Job Suitability (Low-Status Jobs) 5 4 Job Suitability 3 2 1 Non-Immigrant Immigrant Canadian Chinese Mexican 151 Figure 8. Expected Immigrant Status X Ethnicity Interaction for Job Suitability (High-Status Jobs) 5 4 Job Suitability 3 2 1 Non-Immigrant Immigrant Canadian Chinese Mexican 152 Figure 9. Study 1 Exploratory Latinx Ethnicity X Participant Parental Background Interaction for Behavioral Competence 6 5.5 5 Behavioral Competence 4.5 4 No Non- Native 3.5 Parent 3 Non-Native Parent 2.5 2 1.5 1 Non-Latinx Latinx Note. Behavioral competence measured on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Ethnicity dummy-coded Non-Latinx = 0, Latinx = 1. Parental immigrant status dummy-coded No Non-Native Parent = 0, Non-Native Parent = 1. 153 Figure 10. Study 1 Exploratory Asian Ethnicity X Participant Parental Background Interaction for Behavioral Competence 6 5.5 5 Behavioral Competence 4.5 4 No Non- 3.5 Native Parent 3 Non-Native Parent 2.5 2 1.5 1 Non-Asian Asian Note. Behavioral competence measured on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Ethnicity dummy-coded Non-Asian = 0, Asian = 1. Parental immigrant status dummy-coded No Non-Native Parent = 0, Non-Native Parent = 1. 154 Figure 11. Study 1 Exploratory Latinx Ethnicity X Status X Competition Interaction for Negative Stereotypes – Scale Non-Latinx 5 4.5 4 Negative Stereotypes - Scale 3.5 Low 3 Competition 2.5 High Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Latinx 5 4.5 4 Negative Stereotypes - Scale 3.5 3 Low Competition 2.5 High Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Note. Negative Stereotypes – Scale is the mean of the combined immigrant-race negative stereotypes scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). Status and competition measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). Status and competition plotted at -1 SD and + 1 SD. 155 Figure 12. Study 1 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Status X Competition Interaction for Positive Stereotypes – Paragraph Non-Immigrant 3 2.5 Positive Stereotypes - Paragraph 2 Low 1.5 Competition High 1 Competition 0.5 0 Low Status High Status Immigrant 3 2.5 Positive Stereotypes - Paragraph 2 Low 1.5 Competition High 1 Competition 0.5 0 Low Status High Status Note. Positive Stereotypes – Paragraph is the total number of positive themes present in the qualitative paragraph response (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). Status and competition measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). Status and competition plotted at -1 SD and + 1 SD. 156 Figure 13. Study 1 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Status X Competition Interaction for Behavioral Sociability Non-Immigrant 6 5.5 5 Behavioral Sociability 4.5 4 Low 3.5 Competition 3 High Competition 2.5 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Immigrant 6 5.5 5 Behavioral Sociability 4.5 4 Low 3.5 Competition 3 High Competition 2.5 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Note. Behavioral sociability measured on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Status and competition measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). Status and competition plotted at -1 SD and + 1 SD. 157 Figure 14. Study 1 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Latinx Ethnicity X Status X Competition Interaction for Competence Non-Immigrant, Non-Latinx 5 4.5 4 Competence 3.5 Low 3 Competition 2.5 High Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Non-Immigrant, Latinx 5 4.5 4 Competence 3.5 Low 3 Competition High 2.5 Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status 158 Figure 14 (cont’d). Immigrant, Non-Latinx 5 4.5 4 Competence 3.5 Low 3 Competition 2.5 High Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Immigrant, Latinx 5 4.5 4 Competence 3.5 Low 3 Competition 2.5 High Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Note. Competence measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). Status and competition measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). Status and competition plotted at -1 SD and + 1 SD. 159 Figure 15. Study 1 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Latinx Ethnicity X Status X Competition Interaction for Behavioral Sociability Non-Immigrant, Non-Latinx 6 5.5 5 Behavioral Sociability 4.5 4 3.5 Low Competition 3 High 2.5 Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Non-Immigrant, Latinx 6 5.5 5 Behavioral Sociability 4.5 4 Low 3.5 Competition 3 High Competition 2.5 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status 160 Figure 15 (cont’d). Immigrant, Non-Latinx 6 5.5 5 Behavioral Sociability 4.5 4 3.5 Low Competition 3 High 2.5 Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Immigrant, Latinx 6 5.5 5 Behavioral Sociability 4.5 4 3.5 Low Competition 3 High 2.5 Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Note. Behavioral sociability measured on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Status and competition measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). Status and competition plotted at -1 SD and + 1 SD. 161 Figure 16. Study 1 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Asian Ethnicity X Status X Competition Interaction for Competence Non-Immigrant, Non-Asian 5 4.5 4 Competence 3.5 3 Low Competition 2.5 High Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Non-Immigrant, Asian 5 4.5 4 Competence 3.5 Low 3 Competition 2.5 High Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status 162 Figure 16 (cont’d). Immigrant, Non-Asian 5 4.5 4 Competence 3.5 Low 3 Competition 2.5 High Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Immigrant, Asian 5 4.5 4 Competence 3.5 Low 3 Competition 2.5 High Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Note. Competence measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). Status and competition measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). Status and competition plotted at -1 SD and + 1 SD. 163 Figure 17. Study 1 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Asian Ethnicity X Status X Competition Interaction for Behavioral Sociability Non-Immigrant, Non-Asian 6 5.5 5 4.5 Behavioral Sociability 4 3.5 Low Competition 3 2.5 High Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Non-Immigrant, Asian 6 5.5 5 Behavioral Sociability 4.5 4 Low 3.5 Competition 3 High Competition 2.5 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status 164 Figure 17 (cont’d). Immigrant, Non-Asian 6 5.5 5 4.5 Behavioral Sociability 4 Low 3.5 Competition 3 High 2.5 Competition 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Immigrant, Asian 6 5.5 5 Behavioral Sociability 4.5 4 Low 3.5 Competition 3 High Competition 2.5 2 1.5 1 Low Status High Status Note. Behavioral sociability measured on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Status and competition measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely). Status and competition plotted at -1 SD and + 1 SD. 165 Figure 18. Study 2 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Competence Interaction for Job Suitability 5 4.5 4 Job Suitabiltiy 3.5 Non- 3 Immigrant Immigrant 2.5 2 1.5 1 Low Competence High Competence Note. Job suitability measured on a 5-point scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high). Competence measured on a 7-point bipolar scale (e.g., 1 = incompetent, 7 = competent). Immigrant status dummy-coded, 0 = non-immigrant, 1 = immigrant. 166 Figure 19. Study 2 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Mexican Ethnicity X EMS Interaction for Warmth Non-Immigrant 7 6.5 6 Warmth Non- 5.5 Mexican Mexican 5 4.5 4 Low EMS High EMS Immigrant 7 6.5 6 Warmth Non- 5.5 Mexican Mexican 5 4.5 4 Low EMS High EMS Note . Warmth measured on a 7-point bipolar scale (e.g., 1 = cold, 7 = warm). Mexican ethnicity dummy-coded, 0 = non-Mexican, 1 = Mexican. EMS measured on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). 167 Figure 20. Study 2 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Chinese Ethnicity X Job Status X EMS Interaction for Job Suitability Non-Immigrant, Low Job Status 5 4.5 Job Suitability Non- 4 Chinese Chinese 3.5 3 Low EMS High EMS Immigrant, Low Job Status 5 4.5 Job Suitability Non- 4 Chinese Chinese 3.5 3 Low EMS High EMS 168 Figure 20 (cont’d). Non-Immigrant, High Job Status 5 4.5 Job Suitability Non- 4 Chinese Chinese 3.5 3 Low EMS High EMS Immigrant, High Job Status 5 4.5 Job Suitabiltiy Non- 4 Chinese Chinese 3.5 3 Low EMS High EMS Note. Job suitability measured on a 5-point scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high). Chinese ethnicity dummy-coded, 0 = non- Chinese, 1 = Chinese. EMS measured on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). 169 Figure 21. Study 2 Exploratory Immigrant Status X Mexican Ethnicity X Job Status X EMS Interaction for Job Suitability Non-Immigrant, Low Job Status 5 4.5 Job Suitability Non- 4 Mexican Mexican 3.5 3 Low EMS High EMS Immigrant, Low Job Status 5 4.5 Job Suitability Non- 4 Mexican Mexican 3.5 3 Low EMS High EMS 170 Figure 21 (cont’d). Non-Immigrant, High Job Status 5 4.5 Job Suitability Non- 4 Mexican Mexican 3.5 3 Low EMS High EMS Immigrant, High Job Status 5 4.5 Job Suitabiltiy Non- 4 Mexican Mexican 3.5 3 Low EMS High EMS Note. Job suitability measured on a 5-point scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high). Mexican ethnicity dummy-coded, 0 = non- Mexican, 1 = Mexican. EMS measured on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). 171 APPENDIX B: Study 1 Participant Instructions and Measures 172 Participant Instructions These instructions will be presented prior to each measure, unless otherwise stated. All participants will read: You are being asked to provide information on what you think are beliefs other people in the United States hold about certain groups. These may not reflect your own personal beliefs. Further, these beliefs may not be true descriptors, just that they are common beliefs. Pre-Screening Questions Thank you for participating in this study. The following questions will be used to determine your eligibility status. They will not be used to identify you. 1. What is your age in years? [sliding scale from 0-100 years] 2. Which of the following best describes you? A. Native-born U.S. citizen B. Naturalized U.S. citizen C. Green card holder D. Long term U.S. resident (has resided in the U.S. for 10 years or more) E. Prefer not to answer Measures Item wording reflects the adaptations that have been described in the Measures section. All participants will respond to questions that ask about one of the listed groups presented in brackets. This randomly assigned group will remain the same throughout the duration of a participant’s survey. Participants will be presented with the same order of measures as below. Open-Ended Responses of Other’s Perceptions of Social Groups in the U.S. (Stereotype Content – P) In 3-4 sentences, please describe what you believe other people in the United States think about the following group: [Latinx Americans][Asian Americans][Middle Eastern Americans][Latinx Immigrants][Asian Immigrants][Middle Eastern Immigrants][Immigrants] “Immigrants” here are defined as a group of people born in a foreign country who are currently living in the United States. / "__ Americans" in this survey are defined as a group of people born in the United States who are of __ heritage. Adjectives (Stereotype Content – L) 173 Please list 10 adjectives or phrases that you believe other people in the United States would use to describe the following group: [Latinx Americans][Asian Americans][Middle Eastern Americans][Latinx Immigrants][Asian Immigrants][Middle Eastern Immigrants][Immigrants] “Immigrants” here are defined as a group of people born in a foreign country who are currently living in the United States. / "__ Americans" in this survey are defined as a group of people born in the United States who are of __ heritage. Immigrant Trait Stereotypes/Stereotypes - S (Reyna et al., 2013) According to what you believe others think, please rate the extent to which each of the listed words or phrases below describes the following group: [Latinx Americans][Asian Americans][Middle Eastern Americans][Latinx Immigrants][Asian Immigrants][Middle Eastern Immigrants][Immigrants] “Immigrants” here are defined as a group of people born in a foreign country who are currently living in the United States. / "__ Americans" in this survey are defined as a group of people born in the United States who are of __ heritage. Response Scale (5-point Likert scale): 1 - Not at all 2 - Slightly 3 – Moderately 4 – Very 5 – Extremely Items: 1. Hardworking 30. Conservative 2. Happy-go-lucky 31. Ambitious 3. Loud 32. Materialistic 4. Smart 33. Stubborn 5. Religious 34. Practical 6. Friendly 35. Untrustworthy 7. Nationalistic 36. Uneducated 8. Tolerant 37. Exploited 9. Ignorant 46. Passionate 10. Helpful 47. Short 11. Devoted to family 12. Arrogant 13. Prone to crime 14. Raised in poverty 15. Honest 16. Macho 17. Educated 18. Intolerant 19. Trustworthy 174 20. Fanatical 21. Aggressive 22. Talkative 23. Values traditions 24. Passive 25. Likely to engage in terrorism 26. Lazy 27. Quick-tempered 28. Revengeful 29. Socially awkward Racial Group Trait Stereotypes/Stereotypes - S (adapted from Katz & Braly, 1933)2 *New item. According to what you believe others think, please rate the extent to which each of the listed words or phrases below describes the following group: : [Latinx Americans][Asian Americans][Middle Eastern Americans][Latinx Immigrants][Asian Immigrants][Middle Eastern Immigrants][Immigrants] “Immigrants” here are defined as a group of people born in a foreign country who are currently living in the United States. / "__ Americans" in this survey are defined as a group of people born in the United States who are of __ heritage. Response Scale (5-point Likert scale): 1 – Not at all 2 – Slightly 3 – Moderately 4 – Very 5 – Extremely Items: 1. Scientifically-minded 13. Achievement-oriented* 2. Modest 14. Snobbish* 3. Rude 15. Cheater* 4. Illegal* 16. Sensitive 5. Fun* 17. Low-risk 6. Insensitive 7. Showy 8. Polite 9. Thieves* 10. High-risk* 11. Exotic* 12. Nerdy* 2 Original list of traits can be found on p.283 of Katz and Braly (1933). 175 Competence and Warmth (Fiske et al., 2002) According to what you believe others think, please rate the extent to which each of the listed words or phrases below describes the following group: [Latinx Americans][Asian Americans][Middle Eastern Americans][Latinx Immigrants][Asian Immigrants][Middle Eastern Immigrants][Immigrants] “Immigrants” here are defined as a group of people born in a foreign country who are currently living in the United States. / "__ Americans" in this survey are defined as a group of people born in the United States who are of __ heritage. Response Scale (5-point Likert scale): 1 – Not at all 2 – Slightly 3 – Moderately 4 – Very 5 – Extremely Items: Competence Dimension 1. Competent 2. Confident 3. Independent 4. Competitive 5. Intelligent Warmth Dimension 1. Tolerant 2. Warm 3. Good natured 4. Sincere Anti-Asian American Stereotypes (adapted from Lin et al., 2005) One of the following phrases based on the randomly assigned group will be presented to participants in the items: [Latinx Americans][Asian Americans][Middle Eastern Americans][Latinx Immigrants][Asian Immigrants][Middle Eastern Immigrants][Immigrants] Below are a number of statements with which you will agree or disagree. There are absolutely no right or wrong answers. Use the specified scale to indicate the number that best matches how you believe others think about the described social group. “Immigrants” here are defined as a group of people born in a foreign country who are currently living in the United States. / "__ Americans" in this survey are defined as a group of people born in the United States who are of __ heritage. 176 Response Scale (6-point Likert scale): 0 = strongly disagree 1 = moderately disagree 2 = slightly disagree 3 = slightly agree 4 = moderately agree 5 = strongly agree Items: Competence Dimension 1… seem to be striving to become number one. 3. In order to get ahead of others,… can be overly competitive. 5. Most…have a mentality that stresses gain of economic power. 6. … can sometimes be regarded as acting too smart. 9. As a group,… are not constantly in pursuit of more power. (R) 10. When it comes to education,… aim to achieve too much. 12. A lot of…can be described as working all of the time. 17. … are a group not obsessed with competition. (R) 19. Oftentimes,… think they are smarter than everyone else is. 20. …enjoy a disproportionate amount of economic success. 22. …are motivated to obtain too much power in our society. 24. Many…always seem to compare their own achievement to other people’s. Sociability Dimension 2. …commit less time to socializing than others do. 4. ...do not usually like to be the center of attention at social gatherings. 7. ...put high priority on their social lives. (R) 8. ...do not interact with others smoothly in social situations. 11. ...tend to have less fun compared to other social groups. 13. The majority of...tend to be shy and quiet. 14. ...are not very “street smart.” 15. ...know how to have fun and can be pretty relaxed. (R) 16. Most...are not very vocal. 18. ...spend a lot of time at social gatherings. 21. ...are not as social as other groups of people. 23. Most... function well in social situations. (R) 25. ...rarely initiate social events or gatherings. 177 Social Dominance Orientation (Ho et al., 2015) This measure does not include the previously referenced introduction paragraph. The previous sets of questions have asked you to rate what you think are beliefs other people in the United States hold about certain groups. Now, we would like to learn more about your own beliefs. Please answer the following questions as openly and honestly as you can. Show how much you favor or oppose each idea below by selecting a response on the scale below. You can work quickly; your first feeling is generally best. Response Scale (7-point Likert scale): 1 – Strongly oppose 2 – Somewhat oppose 3 – Slightly oppose 4 – Neutral 5 – Slightly favor 6 – Somewhat favor 7 – Strongly favor Items: Pro-trait dominance: 1. Some groups of people must be kept in their place. 2. It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom. 3. An ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be on the bottom. 4. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups. Con-trait dominance: 5. Groups at the bottom are just as deserving as groups at the top. 6. No one group should dominate in society. 7. Groups at the bottom should not have to stay in their place. 8. Group dominance is a poor principle. Pro-trait antiegalitarianism: 9. We should not push for group equality. 10. We shouldn’t try to guarantee that every group has the same quality of life. 11. It is unjust to try to make groups equal. 12. Group equality should not be our primary goal. Con-trait antiegalitarianism: 13. We should work to give all groups an equal chance to succeed. 14. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups. 15. No matter how much effort it takes, we ought to strive to ensure that all groups have the same chance in life. 16. Group equality should be our ideal. 178 Demographics This measure does not include the previously referenced introduction paragraph. Please answer the following demographic questions. Your answers will not be used to identify you; they will be used to describe our sample. 1. Which gender do you prefer to identify as? A. Man B. Woman C. Transgender D. Nonbinary/Agender E. Other (please specify) F. Prefer not to answer 2. Please select your race/ethnicity. Chose all that apply: A. American Indian or Alaska Native B. East Asian C. South Asian D. Middle Eastern or Arab E. Hispanic F. Black or African American G. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander H. White/Caucasian/Not of Hispanic Origins I. Other (please specify) 3. What year are you in school? A. Freshman B. Sophomore C. Junior D. Senior 4. Which best describes your current employment status? A. Full-time worker (35 hours or more per week) B. Part-time worker (less than 35 hours per week) C. Unemployed D. Full-time student (with no part-time employment) 5. Which of the following best describes your mother? A. Native-born U.S. citizen B. Immigrant U.S. citizen C. Green card holder D. Long term U.S. resident (has resided in the U.S. for 10 years or more) E. Prefer not to answer F. I don’t know 6. Which of the following best describes your father? 179 A. Native-born U.S. citizen B. Immigrant U.S. citizen C. Green card holder D. Long term U.S. resident (has resided in the U.S. for 10 years or more) E. Prefer not to answer F. I don’t know 7. What is your home zip-code? [text box] 8. Which of the following best describes you? A. Native-born U.S. citizen B. Immigrant U.S. citizen C. Green card holder D. Long term U.S. resident (has resided in the U.S. for 10 years or more) E. Prefer not to answer Manipulation Checks Which option describes the social group that was presented to you? A. Immigrant Group B. Non-Immigrant Group Which option describes the social group that was presented to you? A. Asian B. Hispanic/Latinx C. Middle Eastern D. N/A Study 1 Exploratory Measures: Immigrant Definition Free Response Question If non-immigrant condition: Thank you for your participation in this survey. We are interested in learning about immigrants and other social groups in the United States. Please tell us in 1-2 sentences how you would define the word “immigrant.” There are no right or wrong answers. If immigrant condition: Thank you for your participation in this survey. We are interested in learning about immigrants and other social groups in the United States. Please tell us in 1-2 sentences how you would define the word “immigrant.” This does not need to be the definition you were presented with earlier. There are no right or wrong answers. 180 Immigrant Classification Knowledge Scale Please indicate the extent to which you are familiar with the U.S. classification system for immigrants (e.g., types of visas). Response Scale (5 – point Likert scale): 1 – Not at all familiar 2 – A little familiar 3 – Somewhat familiar 4 – Very familiar 5 – Extremely familiar Immigrant Classification Knowledge Free Response Question To the best of your knowledge, please explain in at least one sentence how immigrant groups can be classified or described (e.g., types of visas). Status and Competition (Fiske et al., 2002) According to what you believe others think, please rate the extent to which each of the statements below describes the following group: [Latinx Americans][Asian Americans][Middle Eastern Americans][Latinx Immigrants][Asian Immigrants][Middle Eastern Immigrants][Immigrants] “Immigrants” here are defined as a group of people born in a foreign country who are currently living in the United States. / "__ Americans" in this survey are defined as a group of people born in the United States who are of __ heritage. Response Scale (5-point Likert scale): 1 – Not at all 2 – Slightly 3 – Moderately 4 – Very 5 – Extremely Status Dimension 1. How prestigious are the jobs typically achieved by members of this group? 2. How economically successful have members of this group been? 3. How well educated are members of this group? Competition Dimension 1. If members of this group get special breaks (such as preference in hiring decision), this is likely to make things more difficult for people like me. 181 2. The more power members of this group have, the less power people like me are likely to have. 3. Resources that go to members of this group are likely to take away from the resources of people like me. 182 APPENDIX C: Study 1 Consent Form 183 Research Participant Information and Consent Form You are being asked to participate in a research study. To participate in this study, you must be ages 18 years or older AND a native-born United States citizen. Your participation in this study will take about 30 minutes. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation including why you might or might not want to participate, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to discuss and ask the researchers any questions you may have. Study Title: Immigrant Perceptions in the U.S. Researchers: Jo Alanis, Graduate Student; Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Professor Department of Psychology, Michigan State University Contact Information: ryanan@msu.edu 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH The purpose of this research is to understand the perceptions surrounding immigrants in the United States. Specifically, this study will ask you to indicate how you feel different immigrant or United States-born groups are viewed by the general public. This study will be used to inform future research investigating perceptions of immigrant groups within a work context. 2. WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO If you choose to participate in this study, you will complete a web-based questionnaire asking a series of questions pertaining to perceptions of immigrant groups in the United States. You will be asked to respond based on your beliefs about others' perceptions or how you believe others' feel about specific immigrant or United-States born groups. These questions do not contain any language stronger or more threatening than would be encountered on a daily basis. Examples of the words you will be asked to rate are arrogant, helpful, dirty, lazy, confident, rude, cheater, religious, and independent. You will also be asked to report non-identifying demographic information about yourself. You will have the option to skip any questions that you would prefer not to answer. Participants who consent to take part in this survey will be awarded SONA credits through http://msucas.sona-systems.com. In the SONA system, 1 hour of research participation is worth 1 SONA credit and this credit is pro-rated in 15-minute increments. It is up to individual course instructors to determine how many points this converts to in their classes (this should be specified in the syllabus for each course). The duration of this online survey is approximately 30 minutes. Hence, participants who complete this survey will receive 0.5 SONA credits. 184 Please do not complete this survey if you did not register for it on SONA. Some studies have prerequisites. If you did not see this study advertised in your SONA account (e.g., if a friend forwarded you the link), you should not complete this study. In order to receive credit for participation you MUST be registered for this study. Participation in this online survey is voluntary. You may withdraw at any time without penalty. This means that no SONA credits will be deducted from your account, nor will withdrawal have any effect on your relationship with any of your instructors. 3. POTENTIAL BENEFITS You may not benefit personally from being in this study. However, we hope that, in the future, other people might benefit from this study because this research may help us better understand how to reduce bias and discrimination surrounding immigrant groups. 4. POTENTIAL RISKS Answering the questions presented on this survey may be deeply disturbing and upsetting. Survey questions ask you to consider particular negative and positive characteristics and then assign social attitudes about those characteristics to specific social groups. Answering the questions presented could result in feelings of distress, shame, guilt, loss of self-esteem, reveal troubling aspects of human nature and present other psychological risks. If these feelings apply to you at any point during the study, please stop your participation and seek help. 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY This study is confidential. No identifying information will be collected. To help us protect your confidentiality, please do not write or give your name or any other identifying information during the study. Only trained research staff and the MSU Human Research Protection Program will have access to your questionnaire, and all data will be stored on a password protected computer kept in a locked laboratory room. Every effort will be made to keep your information safe. Data will be stored for five years after the publication of research stemming from this project---as specified by the American Psychological Association. 6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW You have the right to say no to participate in the research. Completing this research is not mandatory. You can stop and exit the survey at any time after it has already started. There will be no consequences if you stop and you will not be criticized. You will not lose any benefits that you normally receive if you decide to stop the questionnaire before finishing. 7. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY Participants will receive 0.5 hours of SONA credit in exchange for their participation. 8. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 185 Your course instructor may provide you additional opportunities to earn research credits. Based on your instructor’s guidelines, such alternatives may be considered an equivalent assignment in place of participating in this research. It is recommended that you ask your instructor what these alternatives are. 9. CONTACT INFORMATION Jo Alanis, a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University is conducting this scientific study under the advisement of Dr. Ann Marie Ryan, a professor in the Department of Psychology. If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: (517) 353-8855, email: ryanan@msu.edu. If you have questions are concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at (517) 355-2180, Fax (517) 432-4503, or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd., Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. Selecting “Yes, I have read the consent form and agree to participate” below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study and meet the eligibility criteria. If you would like a copy of this consent form, please contact the researchers using the information provided above. Your continued participation in this survey indicates your consent to participate in this study. 186 APPENDIX D: Study 1 Debriefing Form 187 Debriefing Form Thank you for participating in our study. This form is designed to provide you with information about the purpose and importance of this study. We ask that you please not discuss the purpose of this study with other students. Please remember to click the arrow button at the bottom of the page to end the survey. You will not get credit if you do not click the arrow button. The purpose of this study was to examine the existing stereotypes surrounding immigrant groups in the United States. Additionally, we are interested in how these stereotypes may differ based on the racial or ethnic background of the immigrant group. Throughout this study, you were asked to respond based on your beliefs about others' perceptions or how you believe others' feel about specific immigrant or United States-born groups. This study involved incomplete disclosure as we did not present these questions as measuring stereotypes. We made the decision to omit the word “stereotype” in an effort to more accurately measure such perceptions, a practice that is consistent with many decades of research on how to measure stereotypes. By including the word “stereotype,” it is likely that people will endorse negative characteristics which may or may not be perceptions of other social groups. What is a stereotype? A stereotype is a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. In other words, they are the “pictures in our heads” of various social groups (Lippman, 1922). Are stereotypes true? Stereotypes are socially-constructed perceptions of groups, so they do not necessarily represent the truth. In order to address stereotyping, it is important to understand the nature of the existing perceptions and beliefs, even if they are not true. Why are we studying stereotypes? Stereotyping can occur in various settings, including the workplace. There is evidence to suggest that these types of beliefs may put certain groups at a disadvantage in terms of work outcomes. By conducting research, we can help to develop ways to better address stereotyping, particularly in the hiring process. For more information, please see the following articles: DelCampo, R. G., Jacobson, K. J., Van Buren III, H. J., & Blancero, D. M. (2011). Comparing immigrant and US born Hispanic business professionals: Insights on discrimination. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(3), 327-350. 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(6), 751-768. 188 What can I do to reduce negative stereotyping? One of the best ways you can help is to be informed. We recommend the following articles if you are interested in learning more about combatting stereotyping and bias: Duguid, M. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. (2015). Condoning stereotyping? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 343. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(4), 101-105. Your participation in this study is very valuable in furthering research directed not only towards understanding existing stereotypes, but also towards combatting and minimizing them. With more foreign-born workers in the United States workforce today, our goal is to learn about and promote fair employment practices that remove potential stereotyping and biases targeted towards immigrant groups. While completing this study, the questions you were asked to answer may have evoked negative feelings such as those of distress, shame, guilt, loss of self-esteem, revealed troubling aspects of human nature and presented other psychological risks. Because such perceptions and the stereotypes you were asked to rate are socially-constructed, they should not be viewed as the truth or reflective of any one individual or group, including yourself. We would also like to remind you that you were rating the presented social group based on how you believe others would respond and your responses were not necessarily indicative of your own personal beliefs. If you do have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact the investigators. If you would like more information about the study or have further questions, please contact Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: (517) 353-8855, email: ryanan@msu.edu, Jo Alanis, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, email: alanisjo@msu.edu. To complete this survey, please press the arrow below. 189 APPENDIX E: Study 1 and 2 Qualitative Codebook 190 PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL GROUP PARAGRAPH (1 ITEM) CATEGORY (binary: for each variable listed below, type 1 if present in the statement or 0 if not) Intelligence adjectives positive (e.g., smart, intelligent, educated) Intelligence adjectives negative (e.g., ignorant, stupid, uneducated) Work ethic behavior adjectives positive (e.g., hardworking, dedicated) Work ethic behavior adjectives negative (e.g., lazy, relies on welfare) Warmth adjectives positive (e.g., kind, nice, friendly, family-oriented) Warmth adjectives negative (e.g., cold, rude, scary) Extraversion adjectives (e.g., outgoing, talkative, quiet, keeps to themselves) Appearance adjectives (e.g., dirty, short, stylish) Ethnic slurs or threats (e.g., Boater, murderers, illegal) Ethnic subgroups, nationality, or country of origin (e.g. Hispanic, Vietnamese) Religious adjectives or subgroups (e.g., religious, Muslim) “Outsider” adjectives (e.g., immigrant, different, weird) High status adjectives (e.g., wealthy, high class) Low status adjectives (e.g., poor, low class) Other – Positive Other – Negative GOVERNMENT/POLITICS: Does the statement reference government or political actions/regulations? 0 = No 1 = Yes COVID-19: Does the statement reference COVID-19 in any way? 0 = No 1 = Yes TRAIT/ADJECTIVE LIST (10 ITEMS) CATEGORY (for each of the List variables, select one code below) 1 = Intelligence adjectives positive (e.g., smart, intelligent, educated) 2 = Intelligence adjectives negative (e.g., ignorant, stupid, uneducated) 3 = Work ethic behavior adjectives positive (e.g., hardworking, dedicated) 4 = Work ethic behavior adjectives negative (e.g., lazy, relies on welfare) 5 = Warmth adjectives positive (e.g., kind, nice, friendly, family-oriented) 6 = Warmth adjectives negative (e.g., cold, rude, scary) 7 = Extraversion adjectives (e.g., outgoing, talkative, quiet, keeps to themselves) 8 = Appearance adjectives (e.g., dirty, short, stylish) 9 = Ethnic slurs or threats (e.g., Boater, murderers, illegal) 10 = Ethnic subgroups, nationality, or country of origin (e.g. Hispanic, Vietnamese) 11 = Religious adjectives or subgroups (e.g., religious, Muslim) 12 = “Outsider” adjectives (e.g., immigrant, different, weird) 191 13 = High status adjectives (e.g., wealthy, high class) 14 = Low status adjectives (e.g., poor, low class) 15 = Other DEFINITION PARAGRAPH (1 ITEM) MIGRATION HISTORY: Does the definition indicate being born or coming from a different country than currently living in? 0 = No 1 = Yes RECENY OF MIGRATION: Does the definition indicate the migration was recent? 0 = No 1 = Yes PURPOSE FOR MIGRATION: Does the definition indicate a specific purpose for migration (e.g., work or family)? 0 = No 1 = Yes IMPROVING CONDITIONS (DEFINITION): Does the definition reference the pursuit of better life conditions or opportunities (e.g., “in hopes of a better life”)? 0 = No 1 = Yes SURVIVAL (DEFINITION): Does the definition reference the ability to survive or escape conflict (e.g., oppression) by moving to a new country? 0 = No 1 = Yes DOCUMENTATION STATUS (DEFINITION) (select one) 1 = Are documented/legal 2 = Are undocumented/illegal 3 = Are documented or undocumented 4 = Does not mention documentation status CITIZENSHIP (DEFINITION) (select one) 1 = Are not yet citizens, but seeking citizenship 2 = Are not citizens and do not intend to become citizens 3 = Are not citizens (no mention of intent to become citizens) 4 = Does not mention citizenship DURATION OF STAY (DEFINITION) (select one) 1 = Permanent or long-lasting 192 2 = Temporary 3 = Multiple durations discussed 4 = Does not mention duration of stay STEREOTYPE (DEFINITION): Does the definition include any stereotypes (e.g., “hard working”)? 0 = No 1 = Yes KNOWLEDGE PARAGRAPH (1 ITEM) MIGRATION/VISA PURPOSE (select one) 1 = Multiple discussed 2 = Work 3 = Family, including for a spouse or through marriage 4 = Education 5 = Asylee/Refugee 6 = Temporary Travel (e.g., Tourism, short-term business) 7 = Migration or visa purpose not discussed 8 = Other Purpose Not Specified DOCUMENATION STATUS (KNOWLEDGE): Does the author reference any legal status of entry into the country? 0 = No 1 = Yes CULTURE: Does the author reference culture/national characteristics? 0 = No 1 = Yes OTHER SES: Does the author reference other socioeconomic characteristics (e.g., wealth)? 0 = No 1 = Yes IMPROVING CONDITIONS (KNOWLEDGE): Does the definition reference the pursuit of better life conditions or opportunities (e.g., “in hopes of a better life”)? 0 = No 1 = Yes SURVIVAL (KNOWLEDGE): Does the definition reference the ability to survive or escape conflict (e.g., oppression) by moving to a new country? 0 = No 1 = Yes 193 DURATION OF STAY STATUS (KNOWLEDGE): Does the author reference length of stay associated with visas or migration? 0 = No 1 = Yes CITIZENSHIP (KNOWLEDGE): Does the author mention citizenship in any way? 0 = No 1 = Yes STEREOTYPE (KNOWLEDGE): Does the statement include any stereotypes (e.g., “hard working”)? 0 = No 1 = Yes 194 APPENDIX F: Study 2 Participant Instructions and Measures 195 Participant Instructions All participants will read: Thank you for participating in this study. This survey is comprised of two parts: an evaluation of a job applicant and an opinion survey. Please click the button below to begin the survey. Pre-Screening Questions Thank you for your participation. The following questions will be used to determine your eligibility for this study. They will not be used to identify you. 1. Which gender do you prefer to identify as? A. Man B. Woman C. Transgender D. Nonbinary/Agender E. Other (please specify): ___________ F. Prefer not to answer 2. What is your age in years? (Sliding Scale from 0 to 100 Years) 3. Which of the following best describes your citizenship? A. Native-born U.S. citizen B. Naturalized U.S. citizen (U.S. citizen born in a different country) C. Green card holder (lawful permanent resident but not a U.S. citizen) D. Long term U.S. resident (has lawfully resided in the U.S. for 8 years or more but not a citizen) E. Other (please specify): __________ F. Prefer not to answer 4. Please select your race/ethnicity. Chose all that apply: A. American Indian or Alaska Native B. East Asian C. South Asian D. Middle Eastern or Arab E. Hispanic F. Black or African American G. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander H. White/Caucasian/Not of Hispanic Origins I. Other (please specify): ___________ 5. Which of the following best describes your current political affiliation? A. Democrat B. Republican C. Independent 196 6. Which best describes your current employment status? A. Full-time worker (35 hours or more per week) B. Part-time worker (less than 35 hours per week) C. Full-time student (with no part-time employment) D. Unemployed Measures Job Manipulation Checks The job being advertised requires which of the following responsibilities? Select all that apply. A. Supervise departmental staff and provide feedback on a regular basis. B. Prepare contracts, memos, and other documents for vendors/clients. Stereotype Content (Adapted from Carlsson & Bjorklund, 2010; Fiske et al., 2002) Below is an online profile you have been asked to review for one of the applicants that has applied for the job opening at your company. Read over it carefully and consider all information given when making your evaluation. You will also be asked to recall details about the applicant’s profile. The job posting has also been included for reference. The button to proceed to the next page will not appear until 120 seconds have passed. Given all information you have read about this applicant, the applicant seems: Competence Dimension Response Scale: bipolar 1 to 7 points (e.g., 1 = incompetent, 7 = competent) Items: 1. Incompetent…Competent 2. Unintelligent…Intelligent 3. Incapable…Capable 4. Unknowledgeable…Knowledgeable 5. Unskillful…Skillful Warmth Dimension Response Scale: bipolar 1 to 7 points (e.g., 1 = cold, 7 = warm) Items: 1. Cold…Warm 2. Insincere…Sincere 3. Bad natured…Good natured 4. Unfriendly…Friendly 5. 6. 197 Job Suitability Given all information you have read about this applicant, please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements. Overall Evaluation of the Applicant (based on Podsakoff et al., 2011; Bart et al., 1997) Response Scale (5-point Likert scale): 1 – Strongly disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Neither agree nor disagree 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly agree Items: 1. If we hired the applicant, I think this applicant would be a success on the job. 2. I would recommend this applicant for this position. 3. I would evaluate this applicant’s qualifications for the position favorably. Hiring Intentions (adapted from Derous et al., 2009) Response Scale (5-point Likert scale): 1 – Very low 2 – Low 3 – Average 4 – High 5 – Very high Items: 1. Given all information you have read about this applicant, what is the likelihood that you would invite this person for an interview (i.e., the next stage of the hiring process)? 2. What is the likelihood that you would recommend this applicant to be hired for this position? 3. What is the likelihood that you would recommend this applicant to be hired for another position within the company? Applicant Manipulation Checks For applicant classification purposes, please complete the following questions. 1. The applicant possessed the following educational degree: A. High School Diploma B. University Diploma C. Other (please specify): __________ 198 2. The applicant’s most recent job title: A. Administrative Assistant B. Manager C. Other (please specify): __________ 3. The applicant’s place of birth: A. In the U.S B. Outside the U.S. 4. The applicant’s ethnicity: A. White B. Asian C. Hispanic D. Black or African American E. Other (please specify): __________ 5. The position the applicant is being evaluated for: A. Administrative Assistant B. Program Administrator C. Manager D. Support Specialist Opinions on Social Issues (Social Media Use for Employment Decisions, adapted from Drouin, O’Connor, Schmidt, & Miller, 2015 and Sameen & Cornelius, 2015; ProCon.org, https://www.procon.org/) Thank you for your input. We would now like you to complete an opinion survey on various employment and social issues. These questions will not be used to identify you; they will be used to learn more about our study sample. There are absolutely no right or wrong answers. Please answer the following questions as openly and honestly as you can. Please continue to answer these [final] opinion survey questions. These questions will not be used to identify you; they will be used to learn more about our study sample. There are absolutely no right or wrong answers. Please answer the following questions as openly and honestly as you can. Response Scale (5-point Likert scale): 1 – Strongly disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Neither agree nor disagree 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly agree 199 Items: Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Social Media Use for Employment Decisions 1. A person’s social media account should not be used to make hiring or firing decisions. 2. It is acceptable for an employee to post a picture on their social media site of them holding a beer during a vacation to Ireland. 3. If an employee engages in inappropriate behavior at a bachelor or bachelorette party and someone posts and tags pictures of that employee online, the employee should lose their job. 4. People should be able to post pictures of private events (e.g., parties) without a threat of losing their job, even if those pictures contain inappropriate behavior. 5. I fear that some pictures/videos posted of me will hurt me in any potential job search. 6. Some social media platforms are more appropriate to use for making hiring decisions than others.* 7. Reviewing a person’s social media account is a cost effective method to use in the hiring process. 8. Reviewing a person’s social media account is a time saving method to use in the hiring process. 9. Social media accounts make data processing and interpretation easier during the hiring process. * = new item Right to Health Care 1. The founding documents of the United States provide support for a right to health care. 2. Instituting a right to health care could lower the cost of health care in the United States. 3. A right to health care could increase the US debt and deficit. 4. A right to health care could save lives. 5. A right to health care could increase the wait time for medical services. 6. The right to health care is an internationally recognized human right. 7. A right to health care could make medical services affordable for everyone. 8. Providing all citizens the right to health care is good for economic productivity. 9. A right to health care could improve public health. 10. A right to health care could lead to government rationing of medical services. 11. Because the United States is a very wealthy country, is should provide health care for all its citizens. 12. A right to health care could lower the quality and availability of disease screening and treatment. 13. A right to health care could cause people to overuse health care resources. 14. A right to health care could stop medical bankruptcies. 15. People should pay for their own health care, not have it given to them by government. 16. A right to health care is a necessary foundation of a just society. Free College 1. Tuition-free college will help decrease crippling student debt. 2. Tuition-free college is not free college. 200 3. Students will still have large debts with tuition-free college. 4. The US economy and society has benefited from tuition-free college in the past. 5. Taxpayers would spend billions to subsidize tuition, while other college costs remained high. 6. Everyone deserves the opportunity to get a college education. 7. Tuition-free college will decrease completion rates, leaving students without the benefits of a full college education and degree. Gun Control 1. The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. 2. The Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership. 3. More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths. 4. Gun control laws do not deter crime. 5. Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense. 6. Guns are rarely used in self-defense. 7. Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. 8. Gun control laws would reduce the societal costs associated with gun violence. 9. Enacting gun control laws would reduce the number of accidental gun deaths. 10. The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent. 11. Civilians, including hunters, should not own military-grade firearms or firearm accessories. 12. Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. Universal Basic Income 1. Universal Basic Income (UBI) reduces poverty and income inequality. 2. UBI deprives the poor of needed targeted support. 3. UBI leads to positive job growth and lower school dropout rates. 4. UBI removes the incentive to work. 5. UBI leads to a labor and skills shortage. 6. UBI guarantees income for non-working parents and caregivers, empowering important unpaid roles. 7. UBI is too expensive. Minimum Wage 1. Raising the minimum wage would increase economic activity and spur job growth. 2. Increasing the minimum wage would force businesses to lay off employees. 3. Increasing the minimum wage would reduce poverty. 4. A higher minimum wage would reduce government welfare spending. 5. A minimum wage increase would hurt businesses. 6. Raising the minimum wage would increase the price of consumer goods. 7. Increasing the minimum wage would reduce income inequality. 8. Raising the minimum wage would disadvantage low-skilled workers. 9. A minimum wage increase would help to reduce race and gender inequality. 10. Increasing the minimum wage reduces the likelihood of upward mobility. 11. Increasing the minimum wage would increase worker productivity and reduce employee turnover. 201 12. Raising the minimum wage would increase housing costs. 13. Raising the minimum wage would increase school attendance and decrease high school drop-out rates. 14. Raising the minimum wage would reduce crime. Xenophobia (Van der Veer et al., 2013) Below are a number of statements with which you will agree or disagree. There are absolutely no right or wrong answers. Please answer the following questions as openly and honestly as you can. You can work quickly; your first feeling is generally best. Response Scale (6-point Likert scale): 1 – Strongly disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Somewhat disagree 4 – Somewhat agree 5 – Agree 6 – Strongly agree Items: 1. Immigration in this country is out of control. 2. Immigrants cause increase in crimes. 3. Immigrants take jobs away from people who are here already. 4. Interacting with immigrants makes me uneasy. 5. I worry that immigrants may spread unusual diseases. 6. I am afraid that in case of war or political tension, immigrants will be loyal to their country of origin. 7. With increased immigration I fear that our way of life will change for the worse. 8. I doubt that immigrants will put the interest of this country first. 9. I am afraid that our own culture will be lost with increase in immigration. Prejudice (adapted from Modern Racism Scale; McConahay et al., 1981) Participants will complete the following items based on the condition of their randomly assigned candidate: [Canadian Americans][Chinese Americans][Mexican Americans][Canadian Immigrants][Chinese Immigrants][Mexican Immigrants] Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements. Response Scale (5-point Likert scale): 1 – Strongly disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Neither agree nor disagree 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly agree 202 Items: 1. Over the past few years…have gotten more economically than they deserve. 2. Over the past few years, the government and news media have shown more respect for…than they deserve. 3. It is easy to understand the anger of…in America. 4. Discrimination against…is no longer a problem in the United States. 5. … are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights. 6. … should not push themselves where they are not wanted. Perceived Symbolic and Realistic Threat (Adapted from Gonzalez et al., 2008) Participants will complete the following items based on the condition of their randomly assigned candidate: [Canadian Americans][Chinese Americans][Mexican Americans][Canadian Immigrants][Chinese Immigrants][Mexican Immigrants] Below are a number of statements with which you will agree or disagree. There are absolutely no right or wrong answers. Please answer the following questions as openly and honestly as you can. You can work quickly; your first feeling is generally best. Response Scale (5-point Likert scale): 1 – Strongly disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Neither agree nor disagree 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly agree Items: Symbolic Threats Dimension 1. American identity is being threatened because there are too many… 2. American norms and values are being threatened because of the presence of … 3. … are a threat to the American culture. Realistic Threats Dimension 1. Because of the presence of…people have more difficulty finding a job. 2. Because of the presence of…people have more difficulties finding a house. 3. Because of the presence of…unemployment in America will increase. Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice (EMS, IMS; Plant & Devine, 1998) Please continue to answer these final opinion survey questions. These questions will not be used to identify you; they will be used to learn more about our study sample. There are absolutely no right or wrong answers. Please answer the following questions as openly and honestly as you can. 203 Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements. Response Scale (7-point Likert scale): 1 – Strongly disagree 2 – Moderately disagree 3 – Slightly disagree 4 – Neither agree nor disagree 5 – Slightly agree 6 – Moderately agree 7 – Strongly agree Items: External Motivation Dimension 1. Because of today’s PC (politically correct) standards, I try to appear nonprejudiced toward ethnic minorities. 2. I try to hide any negative thoughts toward ethnic minorities in order to avoid negative reactions from others. 3. If I acted prejudiced toward ethnic minorities, I would be concerned that others would be angry with me. 4. I attempt to appear nonprejudiced toward ethnic minorities in order to avoid disapproval from others. 5. I try to act nonprejudiced toward ethnic minorities because of pressure from others. Internal Motivation Dimension 1. I attempt to act in nonprejudiced ways ethnic minorities because it is personally important to me. 2. According to my personal values, using stereotypes about ethnic minorities is OK. (R) 3. I am personally motivated by my beliefs to be nonprejudiced toward ethnic minorities. 4. Because of my personal values, I believe that using stereotypes about ethnic minorities is wrong. 5. Being nonprejudiced toward ethnic minorities is important to my self-concept. 204 Social Distance (Adapted from Bogardus, 1933) Participants will complete the following items for all of the following groups: [Canadian Americans][Chinese Americans][Mexican Americans][Canadian Immigrants][Chinese Immigrants][Mexican Immigrants] Using the following scale, please select which option indicates the most intimate relationship that you are willing to accept with a member of each of the groups indicated. Think of the groups as a whole, and not the best of the worst member(s) that you may have encountered. Please provide your first feeling reaction in each case. As family As As As As As Prefer not to members by close neighbors coworkers citizens in visitors accept members marriage friends in my my in my of this group in workgroup country country my country (U.S.) (U.S.) (U.S.) Example Group A Example Group B Example Group C Immigrant Classification Knowledge Scale Please indicate the extent to which you are familiar with the U.S. classification system for immigrants (e.g., types of visas). Response Scale (5-point Likert scale): 1 – Not at all familiar 2 – A little familiar 3 – Somewhat familiar 4 – Very familiar 5 – Extremely familiar Immigrant Classification Knowledge Free Response Question To the best of your knowledge, please explain in at least one sentence how immigrant groups can be classified or described (e.g., types of visas). Social Desirability Responding (SDS-17; Stober, 2001) Below you will find a list of statements. Please read each statement carefully and decide if that statement describes you or not. If it describes you, select the word “true”; if not, select the word “false.” 205 Response Scale: true (1) / false(0) Items: 1. I sometimes litter. (R) 2. I always admit my mistakes openly and face the potential negative consequences. 3. In traffic I am always polite and considerate of others. 4. I always accept others’ opinions, even when they don’t agree with my own. 5. I take out my bad moods on others now and then. (R) 6. There has been an occasion when I took advantage of someone else. (R) 7. In conversations I always listen attentively and let others finish their sentences. 8. I never hesitate to help someone in case of emergency. 9. When I have made a promise, I keep it – no ifs, and or buts. 10. I occasionally speak badly of others behind their back. (R) 11. I would never live off other people. 12. I always stay friendly and courteous with other people, even when I am stressed out. 13. During arguments I always stay objective and matter-of-fact. 14. There has been at least one occasion when I failed to return an item that I borrowed. (R) 15. I always eat a healthy diet. 16. Sometimes I only help because I expect something in return. (R) Note: one item has been intentionally omitted as consistent with Stober (2001). Demographics Thank you for your input. Please answer the following demographic questions. Your answers will not be used to identify you; they will be used to describe our sample. 1. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? If currently enrolled, please select the highest degree actually received. A. No schooling completed B. Elementary to 8th grade C. Some high school, no diploma D. High school graduate, diploma, or the equivalent (for example, GED) E. Some college credit, no degree F. Trade/technical/vocational training degree or certification G. Associate degree H. Bachelor’s degree I. Master’s degree J. Professional degree K. Doctorate degree 2. Choose the one that best describes the industry in which you currently work: A. Manufacturing B. Natural resources and mining C. Finance D. Professional and business services E. Education 206 F. Health care G. Information H. Trade, transportation, and utilities I. Restaurant J. Leisure and hospitality K. Retail L. Other services (please specify): M. High tech N. Other (please specify): 3. About how many employees work in your current company? A. Less than 15 employees B. Less than 100 employees C. 100 – 999 employees D. 1,000 – 9,999 employees E. Greater than 10,000 employees F. I don’t know 4. Please choose the option that best describes your experience with hiring employees at work. A. I have made the decision on my own to hire another employee at my workplace. B. I have directly contributed to the decision to hire another employee at my workplace, but I did not make the decision on my own. C. I have never been directly involved with hiring another employee at my workplace. 5. Do you work with: A. All or mostly Whites B. Slightly more Whites than non – Whites C. Equal numbers of Whites and non – Whites D. Slightly more non – Whites than Whites E. All or mostly non – Whites 6. Are the leaders in your organization: A. All or mostly Whites B. Slightly more Whites than non – Whites C. Equal numbers of Whites and non – Whites D. Slightly more non – Whites than Whites E. All or mostly non – Whites 7. What is your home zip-code? ________ 8. Which of the following best describes your mother? A. Native-born U.S. citizen B. Naturalized U.S. citizen (U.S. citizen born in a different country) C. Green card holder (lawful permanent resident but not a U.S. citizen) D. Long term U.S. resident (has lawfully resided in the U.S. for 8 years or more but not a U.S. citizen) E. Other (please specify): __________ 207 F. Prefer not to answer G. I don’t know 9. Which of the following best describes your father? A. Native-born U.S. citizen B. Naturalized U.S. citizen (U.S. citizen born in a different country) C. Green card holder (lawful permanent resident but not a U.S. citizen) D. Long term U.S. resident (has lawfully resided in the U.S. for 8 years or more but not a U.S. citizen) E. Other (please specify): __________ F. Prefer not to answer G. I don’t know 208 APPENDIX G: Study 2 Consent Form 209 Research Participant Information and Consent Form You are being asked to participate in a research study. Your participation in this study will take about 15 minutes. . To participate in this study, you must be ages 18 years or older and a native-born U.S. citizen. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation including why you might or might not want to participate, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to discuss and ask the researchers any questions you may have. Study Title: Job Candidate Selection Researchers: Jo Alanis, Graduate Student; Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Professor Department of Psychology, Michigan State University Contact Information: ryanan@msu.edu 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH The purpose of this research is to understand the complexities that exist when selecting a candidate for a job position. Specifically, this study will ask you to review a candidate’s online profile and evaluate them for a selected job position at a company. An additional purpose will be revealed upon completion of the study. 2. WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO If you choose to participate in this study, you will complete an anonymous web-based questionnaire that first asks you to review an online profile of a presented candidate and evaluate them for a job position at a company. You will then be asked a series of questions pertaining to your perceptions of the presented candidate. At the end, you will also be asked to respond to a series of questions on current social issues and non-identifying demographic questions. You will have the option to skip any questions that you would prefer not to answer. At the conclusion of this research, you will be provided with an explanation of the study. It is our goal that you learn about the research you participated in today. Furthermore, the investigator will be happy to answer any questions you have about the research. 3. POTENTIAL BENEFITS You may not benefit personally from being in this study. However, we hope that, in the future, other people might benefit from this study because this research may help us better understand how to improve the hiring process for all candidates. 4. POTENTIAL RISKS You may feel uncomfortable answering questions regarding current social issues. We are interested only in your opinions and there are no right or wrong answers. 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY 210 This study is confidential. No identifying information will be collected and your answers will only be associated with an anonymous ID. To help us protect your confidentiality, please do not write or give your name or any other identifying information during the study. Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowed by law. Only trained research staff and the MSU Human Research Protection Program will have access to your questionnaire, and all data will be stored securely on the server of the MSU Psychology Department. Every effort will be made to keep your information safe. Data will be stored in this location for five years after the publication of research stemming from this project---as specified by the American Psychological Association. 6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW You have the right to say no to participate in the research. Completing this research is voluntary. You can stop and exit the survey at any time after it has already started. There will be no consequences if you stop and you will not be criticized. You may choose not to participate at all, or you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or discontinue your participation at any time. 7. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY This research study will take approximately 15 minutes to complete, and you will be compensated the amount you previously agreed to prior to entering the survey. 8. CONTACT INFORMATION Jo Alanis, a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University is conducting this scientific study under the advisement of Dr. Ann Marie Ryan, a professor in the Department of Psychology. If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: (517) 353-8855, email: ryanan@msu.edu. If you have questions are concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at (517) 355-2180, Fax (517) 432-4503, or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd., Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. Selecting “Yes, I have read the consent form and agree to participate” below means that you meet the inclusion criteria and voluntarily agree to participate in this research study. If you would like a copy of this consent form, please contact the researchers using the information provided above. Your continued participation in this survey indicates your consent to participate in this study. 211 APPENDIX H: Study 2 Job Descriptions 212 Participants in the low-status job condition will read the following instructions and job posting. Posting: Marketing Administrative Assistant (developed from Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019b) Below you will find a job posting for a recent job opening at the company Sondax Solutions. We want you to imagine that you are the Hiring Manager for this company and are tasked with reviewing the applicants. After you read the job description, you will be presented with an online profile from one of the applicants and asked to evaluate them based on the information you have. Please read the job description carefully as you will be asked questions related to its content. 213 Participants in the high-status job condition will read the following instructions and job posting. Posting: Director of Marketing (developed from Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019c) Below you will find a job posting for a recent job opening at the company Sondax Solutions. We want you to imagine that you are the Hiring Manager for this company and are tasked with reviewing the applicants. After you read the job description, you will be presented with an online profile from one of the applicants and asked to evaluate them based on the information you have. Please read the job description carefully as you will be asked questions related to its content. 214 APPENDIX I: Study 2 Candidate Social Media Profiles 215 Figure 22. Profile 1: Non-Immigrant, Canadian, Low-Status 216 Figure 23. Profile 2: Immigrant, Canadian, Low-Status 217 Figure 24. Profile 3: Non-immigrant, Chinese, Low-Status 218 Figure 25. Profile 4: Immigrant, Chinese, Low-Status 219 Figure 26. Profile 5: Non-Immigrant, Mexican, Low-Status 220 Figure 27. Profile 6: Immigrant, Mexican, Low-Status 221 Figure 28. Profile 7: Non-Immigrant, Canadian, High-Status 222 Figure 29. Profile 8: Immigrant, Canadian, High-Status 223 Figure 30. Profile 9: Non-Immigrant, Chinese, High-Status 224 Figure 31. Profile 10: Immigrant, Chinese, High-Status 225 Figure 32. Profile 11: Non-Immigrant, Mexican, High-Status 226 Figure 33. Profile 12: Immigrant, Mexican, High-Status 227 APPENDIX J: Study 2 Debriefing Form 228 Debriefing Form Thank you for participating in our study. This form is designed to provide you with information about the purpose and importance of this study. The purpose of this study was to examine how different immigrant groups in the U.S. may be vulnerable to unfair or discriminatory behaviors enacted during the hiring process. Additionally, we are interested in how hiring decisions may differ based on the racial or ethnic background of the immigrant group. Throughout this study, you were asked to evaluate a set of job application materials to determine the extent to which you believe the presented candidate possessed the required competencies for the selected position. Additionally, you provided your overall impressions of the candidate and responded to non-identifying personality and demographic questions. What constitutes national origin discrimination? According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), this involves “treating people (applicants or employees) unfavorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not.” For more information on employment discrimination, please visit the EEOC website: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/ Why are we studying discrimination towards immigrant groups? Immigrants are a rapidly growing group in the U.S. population. Current research indicates that immigrant groups may be susceptible to experiencing discriminatory behavior in the workplace, potentially due to factors such as cultural differences, language barriers, etc. Furthermore, they may already be experiencing discriminatory behaviors based on ethnic differences. In order to enhance fairness in hiring practices, it is important to understand the groups that may be put at a disadvantage. For more information, please see the following articles: Del Campo, R. G., Jacobson, K. J., Van Buren III, H. J., & Blancero, D. M. (2011). Comparing immigrant and US born Hispanic business professionals: Insights on discrimination. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(3), 327-350. Kosny, A., Santos, I., & Reid, A. (2017). Employment in a “land of opportunity?” Immigrants’ experiences of racism and discrimination in the Australian workplace. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 18(2), 483-497 229 How can organizations reduce discrimination in hiring? One of the best ways you and others can help is to be informed. We recommend the following article if you are interested in learning more about combatting discrimination in the hiring process: Dietz, J., Joshi, C., Esses, V. M., Hamilton, L. K., & Gabarrot, F. (2015). The skill paradox: Explaining and reducing employment discrimination against skilled immigrants. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(10), 1318-1334. Your participation in this study is very valuable in furthering research directed not only towards understanding how discrimination impacts immigrant groups, but also towards combatting and minimizing related behaviors. With more foreign-born workers in the United States workforce today, our goal is to learn about and promote fair employment practices that remove potential biases directed towards immigrant groups. If for any reason the study questions or participation made you feel in need or advice or counseling, please see the national resources listed below. 24-Hour Crisis Hotline: 517-337-1717 Business Phone: 517-337-1728 https://www.crisistextline.org/ If you do have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact the investigators. If you would like more information about the study or have further questions, please contact Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: (517) 353-8855, email: ryanan@msu.edu, Jo Alanis, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, email: alanisjo@msu.edu. To complete this survey, please press the arrow below. 230 REFERENCES 231 REFERENCES AJMC Staff. (2021, January 1). A timeline of COVID-19 developments in 2020. American Journal of Managed Care. https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19- developments-in-2020 Baker, B. (2018). Nonimmigrants residing in the United States: Fiscal year 2016. U.S Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics.https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Nonimmigrant_Population %20Estimates_2016_0.pdf Bart, B. D., Hass, M. E., Jane, H. P., Sparks, M. R., & Williams, C. (1997). What's in a name? Women in Management Review, 12(8), 299-308. https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1108/09649429710189867 Baugh, R.. (2019). US lawful permanent residents: 2018. U.S Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration- statistics/yearbook/2018/lawful_permanent_residents_2018.pdf Benesch, C., Loretz, S., Stadelmann, D., & Thomas, T. (2019). Media coverage and immigration worries: Econometric evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 160, 52- 67. https://doi-org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.02.011 Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.91.2.426 Bobo, L. (1983). Whites' opposition to busing: Symbolic racism or realistic group conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(6), 1196– 1210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.6.1196 Bogardus, E. S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology & Social Research, 17, 265–271. Boomgaarden, H. G., & Vliegenthart, R. (2009). How news content influences anti‐immigration attitudes: Germany, 1993–2005. European Journal of Political Research, 48(4), 516-542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01831.x Booth, A. L., Leigh, A., & Varganova, E. (2012). Does ethnic discrimination vary across minority groups? Evidence from a field experiment. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), 547-573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00664.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00664.x 232 Brewer, M. B., & Feinstein, A. S. H. (1999). Dual processes in the cognitive representation of persons and social categories. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 255–270). The Guilford Press. Brigham, J. C. (1971). Ethnic stereotypes. Psychological Bulletin, 76(1), 15- 38. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031446 Britannica. (2021, July 7). Homepage. ProCon.org. https://www.procon.org/. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2019a, May 16). Foreign-born workers: Labor force characteristics – 2018 [Press release]. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2019b). What secretaries and administrative assistants do. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/office-and-administrative- support/secretaries-and-administrative-assistants.htm#tab-2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2019c). What advertising, promotions, and marketing managers do. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/advertising- promotions-and-marketing-managers.htm#tab-2 Cabral, S. (2021). Covid ‘hate crimes’ against Asian Americans on rise. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56218684 Carlsson, R., & Björklund, F. (2010). Implicit Stereotype Content. Social Psychology, 41(4), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000029 Carlsson, M., & Rooth, D. O. (2007). Evidence of ethnic discrimination in the Swedish labor market using experimental data. Labour Economics, 14(4), 716-729. https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1016/j.labeco.2007.05.001 Chang, S. H., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). Common racial stereotypes. Equal Opportunities International, 22(3), 1-9. https://doi-org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1108/02610150310787388 Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206310388419 Cowan, G., Martinez, L., & Mendiola, S. (1997). Predictors of attitudes toward illegal Latino immigrants. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19(4), 403-415. https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1177%2F07399863970194001 Crispin Ballesteros, A. (2015). Latino Professionals’ Views on Employment Discrimination Towards the Latino Immigrant Community. Sophia, the St. Catherine University repository website: https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/434 233 Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Demoulin, S., & Leyens, J. P. (2000). Stereotype content of social groups, as perceived by Belgian respondents. Unpublished data, Princeton University. Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. P., ... & Sleebos, E. (2009). Is the stereotype content model culture-bound? A cross-cultural comparison reveals systematic similarities and differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608x314935 Daldy, B., Poot, J., & Roskruge, M. J. (2013). Perception of workplace discrimination among immigrants and native born New Zealanders. (No. 7504). Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn. Del Campo, R. G., Jacobson, K. J., Van Buren III, H. J., & Blancero, D. M. (2011). Comparing immigrant and US born Hispanic business professionals: Insights on discrimination. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(3), 327-350. https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1108/13527601111152851 Derous, E., Nguyen, H. H., & Ryan, A. M. (2009). Hiring discrimination against Arab minorities: Interactions between prejudice and job characteristics. Human Performance, 22(4), 297-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280903120261 Derous, E., Ryan, A. M., & Nguyen, H. H. D. (2012). Multiple categorization in resume screening: Examining effects on hiring discrimination against Arab applicants in field and lab settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4), 544-570. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.769 Derous, E., Ryan, A. M., & Serlie, A. W. (2015). Double jeopardy upon resume screening: When Achmed is less employable than Aisha. Personnel Psychology, 68(3), 659-696. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12078 Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5-18. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5 Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1139-1150. https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1177%2F01461672952111002 Dietz, J., Baltes, B. B., & Rudolph, C. W. (2010). Examining the effect of negative Turkish stereotypes on evaluative workplace outcomes in Germany. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(2), 148-158. https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1108/02683941011019357 Dixon, J. C., & Rosenbaum, M. S. (2004). Nice to know you? Testing contact, cultural, and group threat theories of anti‐Black and anti‐Hispanic stereotypes. Social Science Quarterly, 85(2), 257-280. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15406237 234 Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1991). Changes in the nature and expression of racial prejudice. In H. Knopke, J. Norrell, & R. Rogers (Eds.), Opening doors: An appraisal of race relations in contemporary America (pp. 201–241). Univ. of Alabama Press. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(4), 101-105. https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1111%2F1467-8721.00024 Drouin, M., O’Connor, K. W., Schmidt, G. B., & Miller, D. A. (2015). Facebook fired: Legal perspectives and young adults’ opinions on the use of social media in hiring and firing decisions. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 123-128. https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.011 Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47, 99–114. https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1023/A:1021020920715 Escobar, N. (2020, March 4). When xenophobia spreads like a virus. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/02/811363404/when-xenophobia-spreads-like-a-virus Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.3758/BF03193146 Feagin, J. R., & Feagin, C. B. (2003). Racial and ethnic relations. Pearson College Division. Fiske, S. T., Lin, M., & Neuberg, S. (1999). The Continuum Model. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. The Guilford Press. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 Foner, N. (2000). Transnational ties. From Ellis Island to JFK: New York's two great waves of immigration. Yale University Press. Gardner, R. C. (1973). Ethnic stereotypes: The traditional approach, a new look. Canadian Psychologist/Psychologie Canadienne, 14(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082215 Gilbert, G. M. (1951). Stereotype persistence and change among college students. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(2), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053696 235 Hartman, T. K., Newman, B. J., & Bell, C. S. (2014). Decoding prejudice toward Hispanics: Group cues and public reactions to threatening immigrant behavior. Political Behavior, 36(1), 143-163. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9231-7 Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., ... & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1-26. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pspi0000033 Holt, T. P., & Loraas, T. M. (2019). Using Qualtrics panels to source external auditors: A replication study. Journal of Information Systems, 33(1), 29-41. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-51986 Jordan, M. (2018, February 22). Is America a ‘nation of immigrants’? immigration agency says no. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/uscis-nation-of- immigrants.html Jones, J. M. (2019). New High in U.S. Say Immigration Most Important Problem. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/259103/new-high-say-immigration-important-problem.aspx. Karlins, M., Coffman, T. L., & Walters, G. (1969). On the fading of social stereotypes: studies in three generations of college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(1), 1-16. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0027994 Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28(3), 280-290. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0074049 Kitano, H. H., & Sue, S. (1973). The model minorities. Journal of Social Issues, 29(2), 1-9. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1973.tb00069.x Kosny, A., Santos, I., & Reid, A. (2017). Employment in a “land of opportunity?” Immigrants’ experiences of racism and discrimination in the Australian workplace. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 18(2), 483-497. http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1007/s12134-016-0482-0 Kulik, C. T., Roberson, L., & Perry, E. L. (2007). The multiple-category problem: Category activation and inhibition in the hiring process. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 529-548. https://doi-org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.5465/amr.2007.24351855 Latu, I. M., Mast, M. S., & Stewart, T. L. (2015). Gender biases in (inter) action: The role of interviewers’ and applicants’ implicit and explicit stereotypes in predicting women’s job interview outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(4), 539-552. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0361684315577383 236 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(6), 751- 768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.06.005 Leong, F., Park, Y. S., & Kalibatseva, Z. (2013). Disentangling immigrant status in mental health: Psychological protective and risk factors among Latino and Asian American immigrants. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83(23), 361-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajop.12020 Lim, C. H., Winter, R., & Chan, C. C. (2006). Cross‐Cultural Interviewing in the Hiring Process: Challenges and Strategies. The Career Development Quarterly, 54(3), 265-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00157.x Lin, M. H., Kwan, V. S., Cheung, A., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Stereotype content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of anti-Asian American stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167204271320 Livingston, G. (2017, June 16). The rise of multiracial and multiethnic babies in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/06/the-rise-of- multiracial-and-multiethnic-babies-in-the-u-s/ Manroop, L., Boekhorst, J. A., & Harrison, J. A. (2013). The influence of cross-cultural differences on job interview selection decisions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(18), 3512-3533. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.777675 McConahay, J. B., & Hough Jr, J. C. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues, 32(2), 23-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02493.x McConahay, J. B., Hardee, B. B., & Batts, V. (1981). Has racism declined in America? It depends on who is asking and what is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25(4), 563- 579. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002200278102500401 McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J.F. Dovidio & S.L. Gaertner (Eds.). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (p. 91-125). Academic Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The condition of education 2015. (NCES 2015- 144). https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015144.pdf. Newburger, E., & Gryn, T. (2009). The foreign-born labor force in the United States: 2007. US Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2009/acs/acs-10.pdf 237 Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Stereotypes: Content, structures, processes, and context. In R. Brown & S. M. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 22-44). Blackwell Publishing. Parrillo, V. N., & Donoghue, C. (2005). Updating the Bogardus social distance studies: A new national survey. The Social Science Journal, 42(2), 257-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.011 Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811-832. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811 Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Mishra, P. (2011). Effects of organizational citizenship behaviors on selection decisions in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 310-326. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0020948 Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2017). Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(41), 10870-10875. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706255114 Radford, J. (2019, June 17). Key findings about U.S. immigrants. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/ 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. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0032942 Rodriguez R. M., Torres J. R., Sun J., Alter H., Ornelas C., Cruz M., et al. (2019) Declared impact of the US President's statements and campaign statements on Latino populations' perceptions of safety and emergency care access. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0222837. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222837 Rosette, A. S., & Livingston, R. W. (2012). Failure is not an option for Black women: Effects of organizational performance on leaders with single versus dual-subordinate identities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1162-1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.002 Sameen, S., & Cornelius, S. (2015). Social networking sites and hiring: How social media profiles influence hiring decisions. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 7(1), 27. Shear, M. D.. & Kanno-Youngs, Z. (2021, June 24). Biden aims to rebuild and expand legal immigration. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/31/us/politics/biden-immigration.html 238 Sidanius, J. H., & Veniegas, R. C. (2000). Gender and race discrimination: The interactive nature of disadvantage in reducing prejudice and discrimination. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(11), 2221-2237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559- 1816.1999.tb00107.x Stephan, W. S., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In Oskamp S. (Ed.) Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 33-56). Psychology Press. Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 222-232. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel S. & Austin W.G. (Eds.) Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Nelson-Hall Publishers. Teke, J. (August 2019). U.S. naturalizations: 2018. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics website: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration- statistics/yearbook/2018/naturalizations_2018.pdf Triana, M. D. C., Jayasinghe, M., & Pieper, J. R. (2015). Perceived workplace racial discrimination and its correlates: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(4), 491-513. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1988 Turchick Hakak, L., Holzinger, I., & Zikic, J. (2010). Barriers and paths to success: Latin American MBAs' views of employment in Canada. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(2), 159-176. https://doi-org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1108/02683941011019366 U.S. Census Bureau. (2014, September 16). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2013. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14- 169.html U.S. Customs and Border Protection (2018, January 3). Requirements for immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. m https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver- program/requirements-immigrant-and-nonimmigrant-visas. U.S. Department of Education (2008, February 26). Recognition of foreign qualifications. USNEI. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-visitus- forrecog.html U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2019, September 12). Profiles on naturalized citizens: 2017 country. https://www.dhs.gov/profiles-naturalized-citizens-2017-country 239 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2020a, January 9). Lawful permanent residents. https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/lawful-permanent-residents U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2020b, January 6). Table 21. Persons Naturalized by Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Years 2016 to 2018. https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2018/table21 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2020c, January 6). Table 3. Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status by Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Years 2016 to 2018. https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2018/table3 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020a). Race-based charges (charges filed with EEOC) FY 1997 – FY 2019. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/race.cfm U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020b). National origin-based charges (charges filed with EEOC) FY 1997 – FY 2019. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/origin.cfm Veit, S., & Thijsen, L. (2019). Almost identical but still treated differently: Hiring discrimination against foreign-born and domestic-born minorities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1622825 Williams, D. R., Mohammed, S. A., Leavell, J., & Collins, C. (2010). Race, socioeconomic status and health: Complexities, ongoing challenges and research opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1186, 69–101. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1749- 6632.2009.05339.x Wilson, T. C. (2001). Americans' views on immigration policy: Testing the role of threatened group interests. Sociological Perspectives, 44(4), 485-501. https://doi- org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1525%2Fsop.2001.44.4.485 Wong, F., & Halgin, R. (2006). The “model minority”: Bane or blessing for Asian Americans? Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 34(1), 38-49. https://doi-org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2006.tb00025.x Yam, K. (2021, May 11). Anti-Asian hate incident reports nearly doubled in March, new data says. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate- incident-reports-nearly-doubled-march-new-data-n1266980 Zhou, L. (2021, March 5). The long history of anti-Asian hate in American, explained. Vox. https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/4/21/21221007/anti-asian-racism-coronavirus- xenophobia 240 Zschirnt, E., & Ruedin, D. (2016). Ethnic discrimination in hiring decisions: a meta-analysis of correspondence tests 1990–2015. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(7), 1115- 1134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1133279 241