NowComment
2-Pane Combined
Comments:
Full Summaries Sorted

The (Biological or Cultural) Essence of Essentialism: Implications for Policy Support among Dominant and Subordinated Groups


0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments


Abstract

New Conversation
Paragraph 1 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Most research links (racial) essentialism to negative intergroup outcomes. We propose that this conclusion reflects both a narrow conceptual focus on biological/genetic essence and a narrow research focus from the perspective of racially dominant groups. We distinguished between beliefs in biological and cultural essences, and we investigated the implications of this distinction for support of social justice policies (e.g., affirmative action) among people with dominant (White) and subordinated (e.g., Black, Latino) racial identities in the United States. Whereas, endorsement of biological essentialism may have similarly negative implications for social justice policies across racial categories, we investigated the hypothesis that endorsement of cultural essentialism would have different implications across racial categories. In Studies 1a and 1b, we assessed the properties of a cultural essentialism measure we developed using two samples with different racial/ethnic compositions. In Study 2, we collected data from 170 participants using an online questionnaire to test the implications of essentialist beliefs for policy support. Consistent with previous research, we found that belief in biological essentialism was negatively related to policy support for participants from both dominant and subordinated categories. In contrast, the relationship between cultural essentialism and policy support varied across identity categories in the hypothesized way: negative for participants from the dominant category but positive for participants from subordinated categories. Results suggest that cultural essentialism may provide a way of identification that subordinated communities use to mobilize support for social justice.

New Conversation
Paragraph 2 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 8 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 9 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Keywords:

cultural essentialism, strategic essentialism, diversity, affirmative action, cultural inclusion, immigration policy

New Conversation
Paragraph 4 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 4, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 3 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 3, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 5 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 5, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Introduction

New Conversation
Paragraph 6 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 6, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Essentialism refers to a lay belief in the existence of underlying natures that constitute and differentiate social categories (e.g., Haslam et al., , ; Bastian and Haslam, ). It entails the tendency to understand social categories as expressions of discrete, fixed, natural, uniform, and defining characteristics that are shared by all members, and are informative about them (Haslam et al., , ; Bastian and Haslam, ). Endorsement of essentialist beliefs has commonly been associated with negative outcomes, such as legitimization of existing social hierarchies (Jost et al., ; Keller, ; Williams and Eberhardt, ; Morton et al., ), acceptance of racial inequality (Williams and Eberhardt, ), and anti-Black prejudice among White Americans (Condit et al., ; Keller, ; Jayaratne et al., ; Andreychik and Gill, ).

New Conversation
Paragraph 7 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 7, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 7, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 7, Sentence 3 0
profile_photo
Mar 15
Penelope D (Mar 15 2022 10:59AM) : essentialism associated with exacerbating social heirarchies, acceptance of ratial inequality, and anit black prejudice

Is racial essentialism necessarily negative and oppressive? We propose that this standard verdict about essentialism results from two features of most research. First, investigations of racial essentialism typically understand the defining characteristics of an identity category (i.e., race) in terms of a biological essence. However, people may also understand racial categories in terms of cultural characteristics, rather than purely biological or genetic characteristics. The implications of such beliefs in a cultural essence may be more open to various identity-relevant interpretations. Second, most of the research that implicates racial essentialist beliefs in the reproduction of social inequality has exclusively considered the perspective of people in racially dominant groups. However, people in marginalized or oppressed communities might “strategically use a positive essentialism” (Spivak, , p. 13) as a basis for collective identity and political action. We set out to expand research on racial essentialism by (1) providing a more nuanced conceptualization of essentialism as based on beliefs in different kinds of essences (biological versus cultural), and (2) investigating the implications of biological and cultural forms of essentialism for policy support among dominant and subordinated racial groups.

New Conversation
Paragraph 8 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 8, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 8, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 8, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 8, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 8, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 8, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 8, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 8, Sentence 8 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The essence of essentialism

New Conversation
Paragraph 9 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 9, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

“Essence” is an elusive concept; it is difficult to define precisely what comprises the imagined essence of an identity category (Prentice and Miller, ). The literature commonly defines racial essentialism as a belief in a genetic or biological essence that defines all members of a racial category (e.g., Race Conceptions Scale; Williams and Eberhardt, ; cf. Andreychik and Gill, ). Researchers have identified biological basis as one of the dimensions of essentialism (Bastian and Haslam, ). However, the imagined essence of a racial group need not be biological; people also define racial groups in terms of particular cultural characteristics, or conflate race and culture (e.g., No et al., ; Hong et al., ; Morning, ). Relatedly, essentialist beliefs about race can have implications for perceived cultural differences and cultural identification (No et al., ). It is possible for individuals to understand racial categories in terms of essential cultural features. Cultural essentialism is the idea that “[p]eople are …more or less passive carriers of their culture, whereby their attitudes, beliefs and achievements are supposed to reflect typical cultural patterns” (Verkuyten, , p. 385). Applied to racial identity, cultural essentialism is the belief that racial categories are associated with distinct, fixed, and stable cultural patterns (e.g., values, beliefs, practices, and lifestyles); these fixed cultural patterns definitively and permanently shape the psychological characteristics of individuals within a racial group, and differentiate them from members of other racial groups. Cultural and biological forms of racial essentialism share the idea that differences between racial groups are determined by a fixed and uniform essence that resides within and defines all members of each racial group. However, they differ in their understanding of the nature of this essence. Both forms of essentialism may coexist; indeed, many people perceive race as having both biological and cultural foundations (Morning, ; Byrd and Ray, ).

New Conversation
Paragraph 10 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 8 0
profile_photo
Mar 15
Penelope D (Mar 15 2022 11:03AM) : cultural and racial 2 different things
New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 9 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 10 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 11 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 12 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Research suggests that people strategically endorse or downplay essentialism depending on identity concerns (Morton et al., ). Endorsement of (biological) essentialism is typically greater among people who identify with dominant identity categories (e.g., high social class rank; Kraus and Keltner, ). For instance, endorsement of gender essentialism is stronger among men than women, especially when male social dominance is under threat (Morton et al., ). Despite this tendency of dominant group members to endorse essentialism, White respondents—especially those who report high racial prejudice—endorse essentialist ideas about their racial group less when they perceive that White identity might cause them to be excluded from some benefit (Morton et al., ).

New Conversation
Paragraph 11 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 11, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 11, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 11, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 11, Sentence 4 0
profile_photo
Mar 15
Penelope D (Mar 15 2022 11:04AM) : Dominant group only likes essentialism when it benefits them

Results of a focus group study in the Netherlands suggest that people can also use cultural forms of essentialism to advance collective interests (Verkuyten, ). Specifically, both ethnic minority and ethnic Dutch participants expressed cultural essentialist ideas at times, but they did so for different ends. For instance, ethnic minority participants expressed cultural essentialist ideas to argue against assimilationist policies, claiming that they could not possibly “become just like the Dutch” in order to fully integrate into Dutch society (Verkuyten, , p. 381). Ethnic Dutch participants expressed cultural essentialist ideas—specifically, the belief that a person absorbs the ethnic culture within which he/she is raised, with the implication that Dutch and other ethnic groups are fundamentally different types of person—to argue for restrictions on entry of immigrants into the country (Verkuyten, ). However, ethnic Dutch participants also discussed ethnic identity in non-essentialist terms, particularly to argue that minority groups can—and should—assimilate to Dutch culture (Verkuyten, ).

New Conversation
Paragraph 12 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 12, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 12, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 12, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 12, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 12, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Turning the lens: research from the perspective of marginalized groups

New Conversation
Paragraph 13 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 13, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Knowledge in mainstream psychological science has a disproportionate basis in research from the perspective of people from dominant groups (e.g., Arnett, ; Henrich et al., ). In combination with the idea that people deploy essentialism in a strategic fashion, this fact suggests a reason why researchers have typically observed a negative association between essentialism and egalitarian social policy (for exceptions to research focusing exclusively on dominant viewpoints, see No et al., and Williams and Eberhardt, ). People from racially dominant groups tend to interpret and deploy essentialism in ways that reproduce the unjust status quo. What happens if we decolonize scientific gaze and consider the issue of essentialism from the standpoint of marginalized or racially subordinated identity positions?

New Conversation
Paragraph 14 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 14, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 14, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 14, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 14, Sentence 4 0
profile_photo
Mar 15
Penelope D (Mar 15 2022 11:05AM) : not looking at it from the oppresor viewpoint or the oppressed

Research suggests that people from subordinated categories may often resist essentialist understandings; for example, when they aim to overcome discrimination by challenging constructions of an identity category as a homogeneous entity (Verkuyten and Brug, ). This resistance may be particularly true of biological essentialism of race. Historically, people have developed and deployed arguments about genetic differences between racial groups to argue that certain groups of people are naturally inferior in ability, fitness, or intelligence compared to dominant groups, thereby legitimizing forms of racial oppression such as colonialism, slavery, and segregation (Davis, ; Smedley and Smedley, ; Dar-Nimrod and Heine, ). Given the historical role of beliefs in biologically determined racial differences in justifying racial oppression, endorsement of these beliefs is likely to be incompatible with support for social justice policies, especially those designed to address racial inequality by providing academic and occupational opportunities to people from marginalized communities (e.g., various forms of affirmative action). Endorsement of biological essentialism is likely to be weaker among people from subordinated than dominant identity categories, given the implications of such beliefs for the assumed inferiority of subordinated groups (Mahalingam, ). Since it is unlikely for genetic essentialist beliefs to be deployed as grounds for collective identification or advancement of group interests among subordinated groups, one can hypothesize (H1) that endorsement of biological essentialism in the context of racial categories will have the same negative relationship with support for social justice policies among people from dominant and subordinated categories.

New Conversation
Paragraph 15 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Unlike biological essentialism, beliefs in cultural essentialism may have more divergent implications for endorsement of social justice policy. Similar to the case of biological essentialism, among people from dominant categories, endorsement of cultural essentialism may imply a belief that racial inequality reflects the essential superiority of their own cultural practices and essential inferiority of other practices. This belief may undergird support for anti-egalitarian policies, especially those designed to protect against symbolic threat to the dominant cultural order (e.g., restrictive immigration; on the effect of perceived symbolic threat on negative immigrant attitudes, see Stephan et al., ; McLaren and Johnson, ). However, for people from racially subordinated communities, endorsement of cultural essentialism may not have the same implications. Although one can certainly observe patterns of colonial mentality (David and Okazaki, ) whereby people from subordinated communities adopt dominant understandings of essential inferiority, an enduring contribution of anti-colonial and ethnic nationalist movements is to promote viewpoints that emphasize the positive distinctiveness of subordinated community identity (Fanon, ). These alternatives to dominant discourse promote “models of identification” (Martín-Baró, , p. 30) that constitute a foundation for collective action and resistance (Simon and Klandermans, ). Consistent with this idea, Mahalingam () suggests that people from racially subordinated groups are likely to endorse social or non-biological varieties of essentialism to a greater extent than people from dominant groups. Moreover, research among people from marginalized ethnic minorities in the Netherlands indicates that endorsement of cultural essentialist beliefs with regards to one's own ethnic group is associated with assertion of identity, advocacy for recognition of cultural rights, and greater support for multiculturalism (Verkuyten, ; Verkuyten and Brug, ). In summary, previous evidence for identity-enhancing interpretations of cultural essentialism suggests a moderation hypothesis (H2), whereby endorsement of cultural essentialism has divergent implications for different identity categories: negatively related to support for social justice policies among people from dominant racial categories, but positively related to support for social justice policies among people from subordinated racial categories1.

New Conversation
Paragraph 16 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 16, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 16, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 16, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 16, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 16, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 16, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 16, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 16, Sentence 8 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 16, Sentence 9 0
profile_photo
Mar 15
Penelope D (Mar 15 2022 11:09AM) : only harms those who already have benefits

Studies 1a and 1b: scale development

New Conversation
Paragraph 17 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 17, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Before testing our hypotheses regarding the relationships between the two forms of essentialism and policy support among members of dominant and subordinated racial groups, we set out to examine the reliability and construct validity of our measure of cultural essentialism. We developed 12 items to measure beliefs in cultural essentialism with respect to racial categories. We based these items on existing definitions of cultural essentialism in the literature (e.g., Verkuyten, ) to capture the belief that each racial group has distinct and uniform cultural patterns, which shape the individuals that identify with the group and determine the kind of person they are. We included items in our measure that tap various aspects of cultural patterns, such as values, beliefs, lifestyle and behaviors. In Studies 1a and 1b, we examined the properties of our measure and how it relates to (and is distinct from) relevant measures such as genetic essentialism, implicit theories of race, and social dominance orientation, on two samples with different racial/ethnic compositions.

New Conversation
Paragraph 18 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 18, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 18, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 18, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 18, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 18, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 19 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 19, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Study 1A

New Conversation
Paragraph 20 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 20, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Methods

New Conversation
Paragraph 21 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 21, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Participants and procedure

New Conversation
Paragraph 22 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 22, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

We recruited 196 participants online through our university pool2. We excluded 23 participants from our analyses because they failed two or more of our attention-check items. The final sample composed of 173 participants (39.3% female, 35.3% male, 25% missing3; 69.4% White, 5.2% Latino, 3.5% Asian, 2.9% African American, 8.1% mixed race and other, 11% missing). Participants completed a set of questionnaires and received partial course credit.

New Conversation
Paragraph 23 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 23, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 23, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 23, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 23, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Measures

New Conversation
Paragraph 24 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 24, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Participants completed the cultural essentialism measure (e.g., “Every racial group has a distinctive, defining culture of their own” and “People raised in different racial communities learn to behave, think and talk in ways defining of their racial group,” α = 0.85), the Race Conceptions Scale (e.g., “The physical features of different racial groups haven't really changed much over the centuries,” α = 0.76, Williams and Eberhardt, ), the Implicit Person Theory measure (e.g., “Everyone is a certain kind of person, and there is not much that they can do to really change that,” α = 0.87, Chiu et al., ), Internal and External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scales (e.g., “I attempt to act in non-prejudiced ways toward Black people because it is personally important to me” and “Because of today's politically correct standards I try to appear non-prejudiced toward Black people,” αs = 0.87 and 0.80, respectively, Plant and Devine, ), Social Dominance Orientation Scale (e.g., “Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups,” α = 0.95, Pratto et al., ), a measure of racial identification (e.g., “I feel strong ties to other members of my racial/ethnic group,” α = 0.73, Cameron, ), and the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (e.g., “I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings,” Crowne and Marlowe, ). Participants rated all items using 7-point Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 7 (Strongly Disagree), except for the Social Dominance Orientation Scale, for which the response options ranged from 1 (Very Negative) to 7 (Very Positive). Following the original scoring of the Social Desirability Scale, we recoded the items as true or false (0 or 1, depending on the item) before calculation of average scores.

New Conversation
Paragraph 25 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 25, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 25, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 25, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Results

New Conversation
Paragraph 26 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 26, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

A factor analysis with maximum likelihood extraction and direct oblimin rotation on the 12 items of our cultural essentialism measure yielded two factors. The two factors did not map onto a clear theoretical distinction. The scale had high reliability with all items included (α = 0.85). We therefore proceeded to calculate a cultural essentialism score composed of all 12 items. Scores on the cultural essentialism measure showed a fairly normal distribution (skewness = 0.031, SE = 0.19; kurtosis = 1.20, SE = 0.37). The mean was above the midpoint of the rating scale (M = 4.45, SD = 0.79). Women (M = 4.52, SD = 0.84) and men (M = 4.50, SD = 0.83) did not differ in their scores on the measure, t(124) = 0.159, p = 0.9. Participants who identified with racial categories other than White scored slightly higher on the cultural essentialism measure (M = 4.57, SD = 0.62) than participants who identified as White (M = 4.41, SD = 0.86). This difference was not significant, t(151) = −1.041, p = 0.3; however, we had very few non-White participants (N = 34) compared to White participants (N = 119) in our sample4.

New Conversation
Paragraph 27 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 27, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 27, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 27, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 27, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 27, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 27, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 27, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 27, Sentence 8 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 27, Sentence 9 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Participants' scores on the cultural essentialism measure positively correlated with their scores on the Race Conceptions Scale developed by Williams and Eberhardt () as a measure of beliefs in the genetically determined, fixed, and stable nature of racial categories (r = 0.36, p = 0.00). This finding, which suggests that participants who tend to essentialize race in genetic terms also tend to believe in cultural essences underlying racial groups, is in keeping with research by Morning () showing that people think of race as having both genetic and cultural bases. However, the correlation is moderate in strength, suggesting that the two constructs are distinct. Participants' scores on the cultural essentialism measure also positively correlated with the Implicit Person Theory measure (r = 0.39, p = 0.00), which taps the idea of fixedness of personality. Cultural essentialism scores correlated positively with the External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale (r = 0.19, p = 0.01), but negatively with the Internal Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale (r = −0.26, p = 0.001). This suggests that participants who hold cultural essentialist beliefs about race are likely to be concerned about not appearing prejudiced, rather than following internal norms of being non-prejudiced. Participants' scores on the cultural essentialism measure positively correlated with racial identification (r = 0.18, p = 0.01) and social dominance orientation (r = 0.33, p = 0.00). Finally, scores on the cultural essentialism measure did not correlate with the Social Desirability Scale (r = −0.09, p = 0.25).

New Conversation
Paragraph 28 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 28, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 28, Sentence 2 0
profile_photo
Mar 15
Penelope D (Mar 15 2022 11:11AM) : race does have distinctions, but they dont have to be defining
New Conversation
Paragraph 28, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 28, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 28, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 28, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 28, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 28, Sentence 8 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 29 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 29, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Study 1B

New Conversation
Paragraph 30 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 30, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

In Study 1a, our sample consisted of mostly White university students. In keeping with the aim and hypotheses of our research, in Study 1b, we specifically targeted non-White participants to investigate whether our measure of cultural essentialism had a similar structure and construct validity among participants from subordinated racial groups. We expected the cultural essentialism measure to show the same patterns of relationship with the scales that we used in Study 1a, with the exception of social dominance orientation: in line with H2, we did not expect a positive relationship between cultural essentialism and social dominance orientation among our non-White sample.

New Conversation
Paragraph 31 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 31, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 31, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 31, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Methods

New Conversation
Paragraph 32 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 32, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Participants and procedure

New Conversation
Paragraph 33 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 33, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

We recruited 86 participants online through Amazon's Mechanical Turk website, targeting participants who identify with racial categories other than White. We excluded 3 participants from our analyses because they failed two or more of our attention-check items. The final sample composed of 83 participants (44% female, 56% male; 50% African American, 18.3% Latino, 13.4% Asian, 12.2 Native American, 6% mixed race and other, 1 missing). Participants completed a set of questionnaires and received monetary compensation.

New Conversation
Paragraph 34 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 34, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 34, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 34, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 34, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Measures

New Conversation
Paragraph 35 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 35, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Participants completed the same set of measures as in Study 1a: the cultural essentialism measure (α = 0.88), the Race Conceptions Scale (α = 0.86, Williams and Eberhardt, ), Implicit Person Theory measure (α = 0.90, Chiu et al., ), Internal and External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scales (e.g., αs = 0.89 and 0.93, respectively, Plant and Devine, ), Social Dominance Orientation Scale (α = 0.98, Pratto et al., ), Cameron's () measure of racial identification (α = 0.84), and the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne and Marlowe, ).

New Conversation
Paragraph 36 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 36, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Results

New Conversation
Paragraph 37 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 37, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

A factor analysis with maximum likelihood extraction and direct oblimin rotation on the 12 items of our cultural essentialism measure yielded 3 factors. The factors did not map onto a clear theoretical distinction. The scale had high reliability with all items included (α = 0.88). As in Study 1a, we proceeded to calculate a cultural essentialism score composed of all 12 items. Scores on the cultural essentialism measure showed a fairly normal distribution (skewness = −0.20, SE = 0.26; kurtosis = 1.34, SE = 0.52). The mean was above the midpoint of the rating scale (M = 4.50, SD = 0.95). Women (M = 4.55, SD = 1.10) and men (M = 4.46, SD = 0.83) did not differ in their scores on the cultural essentialism measure, t(82) = −0.43, p = 0.7.

New Conversation
Paragraph 38 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 38, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 38, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 38, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 38, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 38, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 38, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 38, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

As in Study 1a, participants' scores on the cultural essentialism measure positively and moderately correlated with their scores on the Race Conceptions Scale (r = 0.47, p = 0.00). Again, participants' scores on the cultural essentialism measure positively correlated with the Implicit Person Theory measure (r = 0.36, p = 0.00), and the External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale (r = 0.17, p = 0.12), but negatively with the Internal Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale (r = −0.15, p = 0.17), although the latter correlations were not significant. Cultural essentialism scores positively correlated with racial identification (r = 0.24, p = 0.03). However, unlike in Study 1a, cultural essentialism did not show a significant correlation with social dominance orientation (r = 0.10, p = 0.38), suggesting that among participants who identify with racial categories other than the dominant White category, those who endorse cultural essentialist beliefs do not necessarily endorse social hierarchies. This finding is consistent with our hypothesis that cultural essentialist beliefs are not necessarily incompatible with a social justice orientation among people with subordinated identities. Finally, endorsement of cultural essentialist beliefs was not related with concerns about social desirability (r = −0.05, p = 0.65).

New Conversation
Paragraph 39 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 39, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 39, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 39, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 39, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 39, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 39, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Discussion

New Conversation
Paragraph 40 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 40, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Studies 1a and 1b suggest that the cultural essentialism measure we developed has sufficient internal consistency, and shows construct validity, across two samples (Table (Table1).1). In our mostly White sample (Study 1a) and non-White sample (Study 1b), cultural essentialism showed similar relationships with genetic essentialism, implicit person theory, external, and internal motivation to respond without prejudice, and racial identification. However, in our non-White sample (Study 1b), it did not relate to social dominance orientation. This is in keeping with our hypothesis (H2) regarding possible differences in the implications of the endorsement of these beliefs across racial categories, which we investigate directly in Study 2.

New Conversation
Paragraph 41 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 41, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 41, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 41, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 41, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Table 1

New Conversation
Paragraph 42 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 42, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Correlations between cultural essentialism and other variables across samples.

New Conversation
Paragraph 43 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 43, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 44 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 44, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 45 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 45, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 46 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 46, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 47 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 47, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Variables Cultural essentialism
Study 1a (n = 165) Study 1b (n = 82)
Genetic Essentialism
New Conversation
Paragraph 48 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 48, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.36

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 50 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 50, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 49 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 49, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.47

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 52 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 52, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 51 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 51, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Implicit Person Theory
New Conversation
Paragraph 53 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 53, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.39

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 55 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 55, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 54 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 54, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.36

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 57 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 57, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 56 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 56, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Internal Motivation to Respond without Prejudice
New Conversation
Paragraph 58 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 58, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.26

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 60 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 60, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 59 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 59, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.15
New Conversation
Paragraph 61 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 61, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
External Motivation to Respond without Prejudice
New Conversation
Paragraph 62 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 62, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.19

*

New Conversation
Paragraph 64 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 64, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 63 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 63, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.17
New Conversation
Paragraph 65 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 65, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Racial Identification
New Conversation
Paragraph 66 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 66, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.18

*

New Conversation
Paragraph 68 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 68, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 67 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 67, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.24

*

New Conversation
Paragraph 70 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 70, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 69 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 69, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Social Dominance Orientation
New Conversation
Paragraph 71 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 71, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.33

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 73 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 73, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 72 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 72, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.10
New Conversation
Paragraph 74 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 74, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Social Desirability
New Conversation
Paragraph 75 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 75, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.09
New Conversation
Paragraph 76 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 76, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.05
New Conversation
Paragraph 77 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 77, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 78 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 78, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

*

New Conversation
Paragraph 79 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 79, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
p < 0.05,
New Conversation
Paragraph 80 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 80, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 81 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 81, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
p < 0.01.
New Conversation
Paragraph 82 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 82, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 83 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 83, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Study 2

New Conversation
Paragraph 84 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 84, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

We conducted an online survey study to test our hypotheses on the relationship between cultural essentialism and policy support. Specifically, we assessed the relationship between cultural and biological forms of essentialism and support for social justice policies (affirmative action, cultural inclusion, and demilitarized border security) among racially dominant White participants and participants from subordinated, non-White racial/ethnic groups in the United States (US).

New Conversation
Paragraph 85 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 85, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 85, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Methods

New Conversation
Paragraph 86 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 86, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Participants and procedure

New Conversation
Paragraph 87 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 87, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

We recruited 170 participants online through Mechanical Turk [50.6% male, Mage = 36.1 (SD = 12.9), 56.5% White, 23.5% African American, 10.6% Latino, 4.1% Native American, 3.5% mixed race and other].5 Participants completed a set of questionnaires and received monetary compensation.

New Conversation
Paragraph 88 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 88, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Measures

New Conversation
Paragraph 89 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 89, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

All items were measured using 7-point Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 7 (Strongly Disagree). A complete list of items appears in the Supplementary Materials.

New Conversation
Paragraph 90 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 90, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 90, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Biological essentialism
New Conversation
Paragraph 91 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 91, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

As our aim in this study was to distinguish the correlates of beliefs in cultural essences from beliefs in biological essences of race, we used items that tap the genetic/biological component of essentialism directly as our measure of biological essentialism, as opposed to the Race Conceptions Scale (Williams and Eberhardt, ) that taps multiple components of essentialism. We adapted four items from the Belief in Genetic Determinism scale (Keller, ) to measure the extent to which people believe genetic factors definitively shape members of a racial category (e.g., “I think that differences between people of different races in behavior and personality are largely determined by genetic predisposition,” α = 0.91).

New Conversation
Paragraph 92 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 92, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 92, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Cultural essentialism
New Conversation
Paragraph 93 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 93, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

We used our 12-item scale to measure cultural essentialism (α = 0.88).

New Conversation
Paragraph 94 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 94, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Policy support
New Conversation
Paragraph 95 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 95, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

We created three measures of policy support. Eight items assessed support for affirmative action for racial minorities in the US (e.g., “Companies should implement quotas to make sure racial minorities are represented in their organization,” α = 0.88). Five items assessed support for cultural inclusion of diverse populations within the US (e.g., “American businesses, such as supermarkets, should provide the option to print receipts in multiple languages,” α = 0.78). Measures of support for affirmative action and cultural inclusion focus on targets within the US society; these policies may have direct implications for the participants who are members of subordinated racial groups in the US themselves. We also included a measure in our study that focuses on policies regarding targets outside the US society who intend to enter its geographic space. We used five items assessed support for demilitarization of US borders, (e.g., “The U.S. government should reduce the number of Border Patrol traffic checkpoints throughout the country,” α = 0.87). This policy may or may not have direct implications for our participants who identify with subordinated racial groups. We included all three measures to explore whether essentialist beliefs might relate particularly strongly to support for policies that are directly relevant for the participants own racial/ethnic group (i.e., the former two policies for subordinated group members).

New Conversation
Paragraph 96 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 96, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 96, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 96, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 96, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 96, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 96, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 96, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 96, Sentence 8 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Demographics
New Conversation
Paragraph 97 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 97, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Finally, participants indicated their age, gender, and racial category identification in an open-ended format.

New Conversation
Paragraph 98 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 98, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Results

New Conversation
Paragraph 99 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 99, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

We classified participants who reported identification as White, Caucasian, or European as “dominant” (N = 94), and coded them as “0.” We classified participants who reported identification with any other racial category as “subordinated” and coded them as “1” (N = 76).6 We use this binary race variable in all of the analyses that follow. Bivariate correlations between key variables and means and standard deviations as a function of racial identity category appear in Tables Tables2,2, ,33.

New Conversation
Paragraph 100 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 100, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 100, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 100, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Table 2

New Conversation
Paragraph 101 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 101, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Correlations among key variables and means (and standard deviations) for the dominant racial category.

New Conversation
Paragraph 102 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 102, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 103 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 103, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 104 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 104, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 105 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 105, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 106 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 106, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 107 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 107, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Biological essentialism Cultural essentialism Affirmative action Cultural inclusion Means (Standard deviations)
Biological Essentialism
New Conversation
Paragraph 108 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 108, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 109 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 109, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
3.07 (1.54)
New Conversation
Paragraph 110 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 110, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Cultural Essentialism
New Conversation
Paragraph 111 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 111, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.509

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 113 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 113, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 112 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 112, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 114 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 114, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
4.58 (0.96)
New Conversation
Paragraph 115 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 115, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Affirmative Action
New Conversation
Paragraph 116 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 116, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.341

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 118 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 118, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 117 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 117, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.406

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 120 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 120, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 119 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 119, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 121 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 121, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
3.79 (1.15)
New Conversation
Paragraph 122 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 122, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Cultural Inclusion
New Conversation
Paragraph 123 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 123, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.550

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 125 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 125, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 124 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 124, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.469

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 127 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 127, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 126 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 126, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.495

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 129 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 129, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 128 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 128, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 130 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 130, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
4.74 (1.35)
New Conversation
Paragraph 131 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 131, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Demilitarized Borders
New Conversation
Paragraph 132 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 132, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.398

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 134 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 134, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 133 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 133, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.458

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 136 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 136, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 135 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 135, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.570

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 138 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 138, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 137 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 137, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.683

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 140 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 140, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 139 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 139, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
3.63 (1.58)
New Conversation
Paragraph 141 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 141, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 142 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 142, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

p < 0.05,

New Conversation
Paragraph 143 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 143, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 144 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 144, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
p < 0.01.
New Conversation
Paragraph 145 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 145, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Table 3

New Conversation
Paragraph 146 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 146, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Correlations among key variables and means (and standard deviations) for the subordinated racial category.

New Conversation
Paragraph 147 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 147, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 148 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 148, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 149 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 149, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 150 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 150, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 151 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 151, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 152 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 152, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Biological essentialism Cultural essentialism Affirmative action Cultural inclusion Means (Standard deviations)
Biological Essentialism
New Conversation
Paragraph 153 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 153, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 154 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 154, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
3.44 (1.52)
New Conversation
Paragraph 155 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 155, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Cultural Essentialism
New Conversation
Paragraph 156 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 156, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.323

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 158 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 158, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 157 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 157, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 159 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 159, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
4.59 (0.88)
New Conversation
Paragraph 160 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 160, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Affirmative Action
New Conversation
Paragraph 161 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 161, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.126
New Conversation
Paragraph 162 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 162, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.250*
New Conversation
Paragraph 163 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 163, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 164 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 164, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
4.19 (1.07)
New Conversation
Paragraph 165 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 165, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Cultural Inclusion
New Conversation
Paragraph 166 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 166, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.431

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 168 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 168, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 167 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 167, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.077
New Conversation
Paragraph 169 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 169, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.229

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 171 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 171, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 170 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 170, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 172 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 172, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
5.05 (1.57)
New Conversation
Paragraph 173 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 173, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Demilitarized Borders
New Conversation
Paragraph 174 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 174, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.268*
New Conversation
Paragraph 175 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 175, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.047
New Conversation
Paragraph 176 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 176, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.190
New Conversation
Paragraph 177 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 177, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.438

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 179 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 179, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 178 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 178, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
3.90 (1.60)
New Conversation
Paragraph 180 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 180, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 181 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 181, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

We conducted three-step hierarchical regression analyses with support for social justice policy measures as outcomes. Because participants in the dominant category were older (M = 40.05, SD = 13.9) than participants in the subordinated category (M = 31.22, SD = 9.5), t(168) = 4.70, p = 0.00), we entered age in the first step of the analyses. In the second step, we entered conceptual predictors: biological essentialism, cultural essentialism, and racial category. In the third step, we entered two-way interactions of racial category with each of the two essentialism variables. These interaction terms assessed the moderating effect of racial category on the relationship between different forms of essentialism and each outcome variable.

New Conversation
Paragraph 182 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 182, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 182, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 182, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 182, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 182, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Affirmative action support

New Conversation
Paragraph 183 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 183, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The final model predicting affirmative action support was significant, F(6, 163) = 5.993, p = 0.00, R2 = 0.18 (Table (Table4).4). Consistent with the identity moderation hypothesis (H2), results revealed a significant interaction of racial category and cultural essentialism, b = 0.65, SE = 0.19, t(163) = 3.32, p = 0.001, CI [0.26, 1.03]. A probe of this interaction (Figure (Figure1)1) revealed the hypothesized pattern.7 Whereas the relationship between cultural essentialism and support for affirmative action was negative among participants in the dominant category (b = −0.36, SE = 0.13, t = −2.77, p = 0.00), it was positive among participants in the subordinated category (b = 0.29, SE = 0.14, t = 1.98, p = 0.04). We also deconstructed the interaction to test the racial category difference at low and high levels of cultural essentialism. The racial category difference in support for affirmative action was evident only among participants who scored one standard deviation above the mean on cultural essentialism (b = 0.92, SE = 0.25, t = 3.67, p = 0.00), but not those who scored one standard deviation below the mean (b = −0.28, SE = 0.25, t = −1.11, p = 0.27). Based on regions of significance tests, the racial category difference emerged at moderate to high (>0.3 SDs) levels of cultural essentialism.

New Conversation
Paragraph 184 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 184, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 184, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 184, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 184, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 184, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 184, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Table 4

New Conversation
Paragraph 185 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 185, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Hierarchical regression for affirmative action support.

New Conversation
Paragraph 186 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 186, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 187 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 187, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 188 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 188, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 189 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 189, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 190 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 190, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Total Sample (N = 170) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables
New Conversation
Paragraph 191 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 191, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
β
New Conversation
Paragraph 192 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 192, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
β
New Conversation
Paragraph 193 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 193, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
β
New Conversation
Paragraph 194 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 194, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Age
New Conversation
Paragraph 195 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 195, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.17

*

New Conversation
Paragraph 197 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 197, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 196 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 196, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.12
New Conversation
Paragraph 198 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 198, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.13
New Conversation
Paragraph 199 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 199, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Biological Essentialism (Bio Ess)
New Conversation
Paragraph 200 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 200, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 201 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 201, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.11
New Conversation
Paragraph 202 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 202, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.20
New Conversation
Paragraph 203 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 203, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Cultural Essentialism (Cul Ess)
New Conversation
Paragraph 204 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 204, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 205 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 205, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.09
New Conversation
Paragraph 206 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 206, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.29

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 208 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 208, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 207 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 207, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Racial Category (Race)
New Conversation
Paragraph 209 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 209, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 210 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 210, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.15
New Conversation
Paragraph 211 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 211, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.14
New Conversation
Paragraph 212 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 212, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Bio Ess

*

New Conversation
Paragraph 214 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 214, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Race
New Conversation
Paragraph 213 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 213, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 213, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 215 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 215, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 216 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 216, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.17
New Conversation
Paragraph 217 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 217, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Cul Ess

*

New Conversation
Paragraph 219 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 219, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Race
New Conversation
Paragraph 218 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 218, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 218, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 220 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 220, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 221 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 221, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.33

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 223 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 223, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 222 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 222, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
R

2

New Conversation
Paragraph 225 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 225, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 224 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 224, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.03
New Conversation
Paragraph 226 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 226, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.07
New Conversation
Paragraph 227 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 227, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.18
New Conversation
Paragraph 228 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 228, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 229 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 229, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Numerical entries represent standardized regression coefficients.

New Conversation
Paragraph 230 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 230, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

*

New Conversation
Paragraph 231 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 231, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
p < 0.05;
New Conversation
Paragraph 232 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 232, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 233 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 233, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
p < 0.01.
New Conversation
Paragraph 234 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 234, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-08-00900-g0001.jpg

New Conversation
Paragraph 235 (Image 1) 0
No whole image conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Whole Image 0
No whole image conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 236 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 236, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The Interaction between cultural essentialism and racial category on affirmative action support. Other variables included in the model are age and biological essentialism.

New Conversation
Paragraph 237 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 237, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 237, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The corresponding interaction of racial category and endorsement of biological essentialism was not significant. Independent of racial category, the hypothesized (H1) negative relationship between biological essentialism and affirmative action support approached conventional levels of statistical significance, b = −0.15, SE = 0.08, t(163) = −1.84, p = 0.067, CI [−0.31, 0.01].

New Conversation
Paragraph 238 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 238, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 238, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Support for cultural inclusion

New Conversation
Paragraph 239 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 239, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The final model predicting support for cultural inclusion was significant, F(6, 163) = 13.836, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.34 (Table (Table5).5). Consistent with the identity moderation hypothesis (H2), results revealed a significant interaction of racial category and cultural essentialism, b = 0.76, SE = 0.22, t = 3.36, p = 0.001, CI [0.31, 1.20]. A probe of this interaction (Figure (Figure2)2) again revealed the hypothesized pattern. Whereas the relationship between cultural essentialism and support for cultural inclusion was negative among participants in the dominant category (b = −0.32, SE = 0.15, t = −2.14, p = 0.03), it was positive among participants in the subordinated category (b = 0.43, SE = 0.17, t = 2.59, p = 0.01). The racial category difference was evident only among participants who scored one standard deviation above the mean on cultural essentialism (b = 0.98, SE = 0.29, t = 3.42, p = 0.00), but not those who scored one standard deviation below the mean (b = −0.41, SE = 0.29, t = −1.43, p = 0.15). Based on regions of significance tests, the racial category difference emerged among those who scored moderate to high (>0.15 SDs) on the measure of cultural essentialism.

New Conversation
Paragraph 240 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 240, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 240, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 240, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 240, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 240, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 240, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Table 5

New Conversation
Paragraph 241 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 241, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Hierarchical regression on support for cultural inclusion.

New Conversation
Paragraph 242 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 242, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 243 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 243, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 244 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 244, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 245 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 245, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 246 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 246, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Total Sample (N = 170) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables
New Conversation
Paragraph 247 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 247, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
β
New Conversation
Paragraph 248 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 248, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
β
New Conversation
Paragraph 249 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 249, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
β
New Conversation
Paragraph 250 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 250, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Age
New Conversation
Paragraph 251 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 251, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.20

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 253 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 253, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 252 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 252, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.21

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 255 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 255, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 254 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 254, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.21

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 257 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 257, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 256 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 256, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Biological Essentialism (Bio Ess)
New Conversation
Paragraph 258 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 258, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 259 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 259, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.50

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 261 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 261, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 260 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 260, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.42

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 263 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 263, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 262 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 262, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Cultural Essentialism (Cul Ess)
New Conversation
Paragraph 264 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 264, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 265 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 265, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.01
New Conversation
Paragraph 266 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 266, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.21

*

New Conversation
Paragraph 268 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 268, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 267 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 267, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Racial Category (Race)
New Conversation
Paragraph 269 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 269, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 270 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 270, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.10
New Conversation
Paragraph 271 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 271, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.10
New Conversation
Paragraph 272 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 272, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Bio Ess

*

New Conversation
Paragraph 274 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 274, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Race
New Conversation
Paragraph 273 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 273, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 273, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 275 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 275, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 276 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 276, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
−0.08
New Conversation
Paragraph 277 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 277, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Cul Ess

*

New Conversation
Paragraph 279 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 279, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Race
New Conversation
Paragraph 278 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 278, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 278, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 280 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 280, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 281 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 281, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.31

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 283 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 283, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 282 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 282, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
R

2

New Conversation
Paragraph 285 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 285, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 284 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 284, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.04
New Conversation
Paragraph 286 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 286, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.29
New Conversation
Paragraph 287 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 287, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
0.34
New Conversation
Paragraph 288 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 288, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 289 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 289, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Numerical entries represent standardized regression coefficients.

New Conversation
Paragraph 290 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 290, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

*

New Conversation
Paragraph 291 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 291, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
p < 0.05;
New Conversation
Paragraph 292 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 292, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

**

New Conversation
Paragraph 293 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 293, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
p < 0.01.
New Conversation
Paragraph 294 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 294, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-08-00900-g0002.jpg

New Conversation
Paragraph 295 (Image 2) 0
No whole image conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Whole Image 0
No whole image conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 296 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Conversation
Paragraph 296, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The interaction between cultural essentialism and racial category on support for cultural inclusion. Other variables included in the model are age and biological essentialism.

New Conversation
Paragraph 297 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.