Nolwenn Anier
email: nolwenn.anier@uca.fr

Elodie Roebroeck

Emmanuelle P Kleinlogel

Constantina Badea

Armelle Nugier

Mickaël Berthon

Serge Guimond

The effect of the normative context on intergroup discrimination: implications for the scientific value of exact and conceptual replications

Keywords: Discrimination, Secularism, Cultural Norms, Terrorism

de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

1

The effect of the normative context on intergroup discrimination:

Implications for the scientific value of exact and conceptual replications

Because of its high societal relevance, few issues have been more central in social psychology over at least 50 years than the search for the basic causes of prejudice and intergroup discrimination. Although the role of contextual factors is often invoked, it seems fair to suggest that there is a general disregard for the role of culture-specific (i.e., emic) factors. The present approach in contrast, suggests that considering both etic and emic factors, and their interplay, is needed to have a comprehensive understanding of prejudice and discrimination. In line with this theoretical framework (see [START_REF] Guimond | Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts[END_REF] and consistent with the intersubjective approach to culture [START_REF] Chiu | Intersubjective culture: The role of intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research[END_REF], we suggest that these phenomenon are mainly driven by specific cultural norms. Moreover, because there is an overwhelming number of studies on the attitude of prejudice but few studies on discriminatory behavior per se [START_REF] Doliński | Is Psychology Still a Science of Behaviour?[END_REF]Fiske, Bergsieker, Russell, & Williams, 2009), our focus will be on discrimination, defined as a differential and unfavorable treatment of an individual solely because that individual is member of an ethno-religious minority group.

The Effects of Shared Beliefs on Intergroup Discrimination

Previous research has documented the powerful role of norms in the expression of prejudice [START_REF] Crandall | Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization[END_REF]. Although there is still little research on the role of norms related to minorities' integration, a sizable body of work has studied the closely related concept of intergroup ideologies (see [START_REF] Whitley | The Relationships of Intergroup Ideologies to Ethnic Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis[END_REF]. Intergroup ideologies are beliefs about how relations between groups differing in ethnic or cultural background should be organized in plural societies [START_REF] Berry | Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the 1991 National Survey[END_REF][START_REF] Brown | The Dynamics of acculturation. An intergroup perspective[END_REF] CULTURAL NORMS AND DISCRIMINATION 2 2011; [START_REF] Rattan | Diversity ideologies and intergroup relations: An examination of colorblindness and multiculturalism[END_REF]. The most studied ideologies are assimilation, multiculturalism, and colorblindness [START_REF] Levin | Assimilation, multiculturalism, and colorblindness: Mediated and moderated relationships between social dominance orientation and prejudice[END_REF]. Assimilation refers to the view that newcomers should conform to the ways of the majority and is associated with higher levels of prejudice [START_REF] Guimond | Living in a multicultural world: Intergroup ideologies and the societal context of intergroup relations[END_REF]. Multiculturalism involves a willingness to recognize and promote cultural differences and is associated with lower levels of prejudice [START_REF] Berry | Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the 1991 National Survey[END_REF][START_REF] Verkuyten | Ethnic Group Identification and Group Evaluation Among Minority and Majority Groups: Testing the Multiculturalism Hypothesis[END_REF]. Finally, colorblindness stresses ignoring group differences and can either increase or reduce prejudice [START_REF] Rattan | Diversity ideologies and intergroup relations: An examination of colorblindness and multiculturalism[END_REF][START_REF] Richeson | The impact of multiculturalism versus colorblindness on racial bias[END_REF][START_REF] Wolsko | Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals[END_REF].

A psychology of prejudice and discrimination can consider these beliefs as universal causal factors in intergroup relations. However, a social and cultural psychology [START_REF] Sedikides | Pancultural self-enhancement[END_REF] of prejudice and discrimination suggests that the influence of these beliefs can vary as a function of the normative context. can do more than that. A social psychology should indeed consider that ideologies and prejudices and discrimination influence each other within each culture. Regarding the effect of these ideologies on people's attitudes and behaviors, [START_REF] Guimond | Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts[END_REF][START_REF] Guimond | Living in a multicultural world: Intergroup ideologies and the societal context of intergroup relations[END_REF] have argued that intergroup ideologies are central features of the social and political context and that much of their power of intergroup ideologies to shape behaviors may derive from their instantiation as cultural norms that they can generate (i.e., the creation of a belief that allmost people in the country strongly support an intergroup ideology).

Support for this view was obtained concerning multiculturalism and assimilation. Citizens from four countries that are known to differ in their diversity policy were compared (see [START_REF] Guimond | Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts[END_REF]. The country where multiculturalism was strongly institutionalized had a perceived multicultural norm that was highest (and conversely the lowest perceived assimilation norm). Moreover, this perceived cultural norm contributed directly (and indirectly by shaping personal attitudes toward a given intergroup ideology) to explain why the countries differed significantly in their level of anti-Muslim prejudice.

One of the fundamental implications of this new perspective is that the role of some critical determinants of prejudice and discrimination may be variable across cultural settings. [START_REF] Guimond | Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts[END_REF] found that only attitudes towards an ideology perceived as normative influence the level of prejudice. In other words, personal support for multiculturalism would be expected to have a more powerful impact in Canada, where it is a widely shared cultural norm, than in Germany or in France, where it is not [START_REF] Guimond | Les représentations du multiculturalisme en France: Décalage singulier entre l'individuel et le collectif[END_REF].

The present series of studies was designed to provide further evidence for this view by considering the determinants of discriminatory behaviors, rather than prejudice, in a setting where neither multiculturalism nor assimilation were expected to be the main operating factor. France is an ideal setting for that matter.

"Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité": The French Approach to Diversity

Research suggest that the intergroup ideology that characterizes French republicanism, the French approach to diversity, is organized along not one but two distinct dimensions [START_REF] Kamiejski | Le modèle républicain d'intégration : implications pour la psychologie des relations entre groupes[END_REF][START_REF] Nugier | Nouvelle Laïcité» en France et Pression Normative Envers les Minorités Musulmanes [Secularism in France and Normative Pressure Against Muslim Minorities[END_REF]Roebroeck & Guimond, 2016). One dimension, that can be called "new secularism" ("nouvelle laïcité" in French), suggests that all religious practices should be kept in private. According to Baube ŕot (2012), this vision of French secularism does not refer to the historical meaning of secularism but rather to a misinterpretation of the original principle (Baube ŕot, 2012; [START_REF] Freedman | Secularism as a Barrier to Integration? The French Dilemma[END_REF]Roebroeck & Guimond, 2016). Moreover, "new secularism" seems mostly directed toward one religion:

Islam (see Baubérot, 2012;Nugier et al., 2016;Troian, Bonetto, Varet, Barbier & Lo Monaco, 2018).

The second dimension underlying the French intergroup ideology has been called

"colorblind equality". It refers to the idea that France is made up of individual citizens, and that one should not distinguish between people on the basis of any group affiliation. This dimension is close to the intergroup ideology of colorblindness discussed above, although it also refers to the idea that citizens are the basic unit of French republic. Moreover, in France, this dimension connects with the "historical" meaning of secularism, as institutionalized in the law of 1905 (Roebroeck & Guimond, 2016). Historical secularism established that in France, the State and its representatives were to be neutral concerning religion, so that all French citizens are free to practice the religion of their choice (see Baubérot, 2012). Considering that the previous dimension also relates to secularism, it appears that the two dimensions of the French intergroup ideology embody a confrontation between two different views of secularism, a point that will become important later on. Indeed, each dimension is pulling in a different direction in terms of anti-immigrant prejudice. Personal support for new secularism is consistently related to a high level of prejudice whereas colorblind equality is strongly related to the opposite [START_REF] Badea | Modèles d'intégration, identification nationale et attitudes envers les immigrés en France[END_REF][START_REF] Kamiejski | Le modèle républicain d'intégration : implications pour la psychologie des relations entre groupes[END_REF][START_REF] Nugier | La discrimination envers les minorités ethniques et religieuses: le rôle des politiques d'intégration[END_REF]Roebroeck & Guimond, 2016[START_REF] Doliński | Is Psychology Still a Science of Behaviour?[END_REF]. The aim of the present research will be to extend the scope of these results by studying for the first time the effect of the normative context associated with these dimensions of French republicanism on intergroup discrimination.

Overview of the Present Research

Previous research on the French intergroup ideology is of a correlational nature and concerns personal attitudes toward new secularism and colorblind equality. No studies to date This issue joins the many debates about the results of the Open Science Collaboration (OSC) reproducibility project (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). This project involved 270 researchers who attempted to directly replicate 100 studies published in top psychology journals. Only 39% of psychology studies were rated as unambiguously replicated (see however [START_REF] Amir | Are Social Psychological Laws Cross-Culturally Valid?[END_REF]. As a result, a major debate emerged about the best way to test for the reliability of scientific findings. Some researchers argue for exact (or direct) replication, that is to say an identical reproduction of the experimental protocol (e.g., [START_REF] Lebel | Falsifiability is not optional[END_REF][START_REF] Simons | The Value of Direct Replication[END_REF]. Others argue in favor of conceptual replication, taking into account the specificities of the social environment in which studies are conducted (e.g., [START_REF] Crandall | On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress[END_REF][START_REF] Greenfield | Cultural Change Over Time: Why Replicability Should Not Be the Gold Standard in Psychological Science[END_REF]. The present series of studies address this debate as Study 2b represents an exact replication of Study 2a, whereas Study 3 is a conceptual replication of the results observed in Study 2a.

Study 1

Recent research suggests that much of diversity policies' power to shape behaviors may derive from the cultural norms they generate (see [START_REF] Guimond | Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts[END_REF][START_REF] Pelletier-Dumas | The Role of Assimilation and Multiculturalism for the Relation Between Social Dominance Orientation and Prejudice: The Case of Anglophones and Francophones in Québec[END_REF]. In this research, we argue that the French approach to diversity policy is associated with important group norms: colorblind equality and new secularism (Bauberot, 2012;[START_REF] Kamiejski | Le modèle républicain d'intégration : implications pour la psychologie des relations entre groupes[END_REF]. However, to date, no studies have been conducted to examine these integration norms in a comparative perspective. To address this issue, Study 1 compares citizens from five countries, including France, on normative perceptions of colorblind equality, new secularism, multiculturalism and assimilation. We hypothesize that French participants will perceive a stronger normative support for colorblind equality (H1) and new secularism (H2) than what can be found in other western countries.

Method

Participants. We used data from an international survey conducted with university students in 2009 (ANR project IMERCI, Guimond, 2011). The overall project involved participants from five countries. Seven hundred forty university students compose our sample.

Seven participants had to be removed, because of missing values, which leads us to a sample of 733 participants (Mage = 20.31, SD = 4.96, 513 women and 220 men). Participants came from English-speaking Canada (61.54% women), France (77.56% women), U.K. (80.75% women), Germany (84.82% women), and U.S.A. (52.61% women). These countries have been chosen because they represent different cultures, but nevertheless comparable (to a certain extent) because they all come from the Western model. All participants were students in major universities of their country.

Material. The study was presented to participants as focusing on social perceptions and representations. English questionnaires were used in the three English-speaking countries.

The questionnaire was translated into French for France (using items already available in French), and back translated into German for Germany.

The normative perceptions measures were adapted from [START_REF] Guimond | Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts[END_REF].

Participants were asked if they thought the proposed statements were shared in their country on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The colorblind equality norm scale was composed of three items ("Most […] think that it's best to judge one another as individuals rather than as members of an ethnic group", total α = .

Results

As a first step in our analyses, we performed an exploratory factorial analysis with our normative perception items, which confirms the good factorial structure and the validity of the scale (see Table 1). Correlation analyses showed that assimilation is moderately and positively related to new secularism (r = .31, p < .001, see Table 2) and multiculturalism is moderately related to colorblind equality (r = .40, p < .001). One should also notice that colorblind equality is negatively related to assimilation (r = -.29, p < .001). Finally, there is no relation between colorblind equality and new secularism (r = -.04, p = .278), showing the independence between these two variables.

To test our hypotheses, we compared the normative perceptions in the different countries (see Table 3 for means and standard deviations). With regards to the colorblind equality norm, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) highlighted a significant main effect of country: F(4, 728) = 12.95, p < .001, η 2 = .07. Detailed results are presented in Table 4.

Perception of a colorblind equality norm in France is significantly higher than in Germany but lower than in Canada, contrary to H1. No differences were found between France and U.K.

With regards to the new secularism norm, the ANOVA also highlighted a significant and strong main effect of country: F(4, 728) = 29.81, p < .001, η 2 = .14. Follow-up analyses (see Table 4) showed that French people perceive a stronger new secularism norm (M = 5.54, SD = 1.10) than inhabitants of all other countries, as predicted in H2.

Comparable analyses yielded significant effects of the country for both assimilation:

F(4, 728) = 19.46, p < .001, η 2 =.10, and multiculturalism: F(4, 728) = 20.85, p < .001, η 2 =.10. Follow-up analyses (see Table 4) showed that French people perceive a stronger assimilation norm than Canadians. No differences were found between France and Germany.

Finally, a substantial difference was found between France and the UK, and between France and U.S.A. The French would seem to perceive a norm of assimilation slightly higher than the inhabitants of these countries (probably due to the stronger multicultural aspect of Anglo-Saxons model). French people also perceive a weaker multiculturalism norm than English, American, and Canadian participants, whereas the difference with Germany is not significant.

Overall, it could be argued that perceived norms reflect strong diversity policies within a country, especially multiculturalism in Canada, and new secularism in France.

Discussion

Going beyond past research, the current study is the first to compare different countries about normative perceptions of four principles dealing with cultural and religious diversity. This study shows new secularism as being highly France-specific (confirming our H2). Consistent with Guimond et al.'s model (2013), this effect can be explained by the fact that France was one of the first countries to vote laws related to this ideology. However, we

did not find such differences between France and other countries regarding colorblind equality. This may suggest that other variables are at stake into the transformation from diversity policies to integration norms. Previous work revealed the importance of media [START_REF] Paluck | Reducing Intergroup Prejudice and Conflict Using the Media: A Field Experiment in Rwanda[END_REF] and political institutions [START_REF] Chiu | Motivated cultural cognition: The impact of implicit cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as a function of need for closure[END_REF] in shaping perceived norms in a country. Based on this, one can imagine that new secularism has emerged, with the political and the media coverage of this concept, as a central cultural norm in France, contrary to colorblind equality, far less discussed in French media at the time this study was conducted.

Nevertheless, the effects of these cultural norms on behaviors are still unknown. We address this issue in a second study.

Study 2

Study 1 shows that new secularism, a specific dimension of the French intergroup ideology, is perceived as highly normative by French people. According to Guimond et al.'s model (2013), when salient, this norm of new secularism should impact prejudice and discrimination among French majority group members. Research in France showed that supporting new secularism is positively related with anti-Muslim prejudice [START_REF] Badea | Modèles d'intégration, identification nationale et attitudes envers les immigrés en France[END_REF][START_REF] Kamiejski | Le modèle républicain d'intégration : implications pour la psychologie des relations entre groupes[END_REF]Roebroeck & Guimond, 2015[START_REF] Greenfield | Cultural Change Over Time: Why Replicability Should Not Be the Gold Standard in Psychological Science[END_REF][START_REF] Doliński | Is Psychology Still a Science of Behaviour?[END_REF][START_REF] Troian | The effect of Social dominance on prejudice towards North-African minorities: Evidence for the role of social representation of Secularism as a legitimizing myth[END_REF]. Given the results of Study 1 and these previous results, we predict that making the cultural norm of new secularism salient will increase anti-Muslim discrimination. In contrast, we do not expect assimilation or multiculturalism's norm to have much impact on discrimination in France (our hypothesis being that only norms perceived as typical of a country, and thus highly selfdefining, will have an effect on behavior). If we initially thought that the colorblind equality norm would have an effect on discrimination (by decreasing it), we cannot formulate a precise hypothesis concerning this norm in light of the results of Study 1.

In agreement with [START_REF] Guimond | Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts[END_REF], we think that the best way to explain discrimination is to combine etic (universal) and emic (cultural) factors. The content of cultural norms is an emic factor. However, the process of conforming to some cultural norms is an etic factor. Thus, in addition to manipulating the content of cultural norms, we considered the effect of a factor that influences the importance attached to cultural norms: time pressure. Indeed, under time pressure, people have a greater tendency to use cultural norms as a guide for their behaviors [START_REF] Gelfand | From one mind to many: The emerging science of cultural norms[END_REF][START_REF] Kruglanski | Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing[END_REF][START_REF] Leung | Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how[END_REF]. Based on this research, we expect that this variable will increase the impact of integration norms on discrimination. Thus, we predict that the new secularism norm will increase anti-Muslim discrimination especially under time pressure (H3).

Study 2 was initially thought of as a single study. Unfortunately, unforeseen events occurred during our experimentation. The city of Paris has been the object of repeated terrorist attacks (the attacks of Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Kasher of January 2015), followed by a huge civic demonstration (on January 11, 2015) intended to re-assert republican values.

Our goal being to show that the cultural context can influence discriminatory behavior, we decided, as explained above, to split the data in two groups of participants: before the attacks (study 2a, N = 107) and after the attacks (study 2b, N = 189). The method of these two studies is strictly identical, which makes Study 2b an exact replication of the Study 2a, but performed in a different context. As a result, Study 2 directly addresses the debate about direct vs conceptual replication in psychology. Social attitudes and behaviors, as most topics studied in social psychology, are highly context-sensitive. This question of contextual sensitivity is central to the current replication crisis. Van Bavel, Mende-Siedlecki, Brady and Reinero (2016) reported that there is a reliable relation between the context sensitivity of a topic, as coded by blind judges, and the success of replications by OSC ( 2015): the more context sensitive a phenomenon, the less likely it was to be replicated. However, the OSC project did show that the effect size of the original results was strongly related to the success of the replication, suggesting that context may not necessarily matters.

Method

The method described below is exactly the same in studies 2a and 2b. The identity of the experimenters also remains unchanged between the two studies, as well as the physical setting of the laboratory.

Procedure. The procedure was modelled after the one used by [START_REF] Michinov | Social dominance orientation, prejudice, and discrimination: A new computer-based method for studying discriminatory behaviors[END_REF]. The presentation of all stimuli was controlled via E-Prime.

Participants were invited to take part in a study about leadership in organizations and were first introduced to our "partner" organization. As a function of the experimental condition, the integration norm of the organization was characterized by either (a) a pleasant working environment (Control condition), (b) a shared striving for employee homogeneity (Assimilation), (c) a shared striving for cultural diversity (Multiculturalism), (d) a shared striving for equal rights regardless of differences (Colorblind Equality), or (e) a shared striving for banning the display of conspicuous religious signs at work (New Secularism).

Each of these cultural norms was presented as a mean to foster organizational performance.

To reinforce the manipulation, participants were also presented with 10 statements on the computer screen, all congruent with their cultural norm condition and asked to select three of them that best represented the culture of their organization.

Participants in the Time Pressure condition were told that they had very little time to complete the exercise. Signs flashing on the computer screen indicating a time limit during exercises reinforced these instructions. Participants in the No Time Pressure condition did not receive such instruction. At the end of the experiment, participants were thanked and debriefed.

Measures.

Participants were asked to make a number of "managerial decisions", including a key task designed to measure discrimination.

The organizational hierarchy task. Discrimination was measured using an adapted version of the "organizational hierarchy" task developed and validated by [START_REF] Michinov | Social dominance orientation, prejudice, and discrimination: A new computer-based method for studying discriminatory behaviors[END_REF]. Participants were presented with an organizational hierarchy and the pictures of six individuals (chosen from the Radboud Faces database, Langner, Dotsch, Biljstra, Wigboldus,

Hawk & van Knippenberg, 2010). Among these six individuals, four were Caucasian and two were North-African. Each picture was identified by a "typical" first name. The task of the participants was to assign a position in the organizational hierarchy to each of these individuals as well as to themselves. Following [START_REF] Michinov | Social dominance orientation, prejudice, and discrimination: A new computer-based method for studying discriminatory behaviors[END_REF], the organizational hierarchy represented 8 positions along 4 hierarchical levels. We measured participant discriminatory behaviors by averaging the position assigned to the two North-African individuals. This measure ranged from 1.5, meaning that they were positioned at the two highest levels (i.e., levels 1 and 2) to 4 meaning that they were positioned at the lowest level (i.e., level 4). Because participants were not given any information about the six co-workers beside their group membership, any systematic tendency to place the two North-African individuals at the bottom of the hierarchy is a discriminatory behavior.

In order to check the reliability of our discrimination measure and of our experimental manipulations, and to observe potential differences between attitudes and behaviors, we measured several other variables described below.

Time spent on the organizational hierarchy task.

In order to verify the effectiveness of our time pressure manipulation, we measured the time spent by the participants in performing the discrimination task.

Personal support toward different intergroup ideologies. In order to know if the manipulation of norms influences the personal attitudes of the participants, personal attitudes toward new laïcité, colorblind equality, multiculturalism and assimilation were measured using a series of 12 items with agreement or disagreement ratings on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). As expected, there were no effects of experimental conditions on these items (all ps > .050) suggesting that our manipulation of the normative context did not change the personal attitudes of the participants. These items will not be discussed further unless they are useful to interpret the results.

Generalized Prejudice. We used a 10 items-scale [START_REF] Dambrun | La théorie de la privation relative et l'hostilité envers les Nord-Africains [The theory of relative deprivation and hostility towards North Africans[END_REF].

Participants had to indicate their degree of agreement with the different statements (such as "Immigration has adverse effects on French culture" or "French nationality should not be granted so easily") by choosing a score between 1 (totally disagree) and 5 (totally agree). The reliability index of the scale was satisfactory (total α = .84).

Attitudes toward Arab-Muslim populations.

In order to assess participants' attitudes towards different groups generally associated with the North African population, we used a measure called "feeling thermometer" (see [START_REF] Echebarria-Echabe | Effects of terrorism on attitudes and ideological orientation[END_REF][START_REF] Guimond | Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts[END_REF]. Participants were asked to assign different groups a score ranging from 0 (very negative attitudes) to 10 (very positive attitudes). We then calculated the average scores obtained by four groups: Arabs, Muslims, Turks and Maghrebians (total α = .94).

Social Dominance Orientation. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is frequently associated with prejudice and discrimination. We used a 4-items scale drawn from Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth and Malle (1994, "Sometimes you have to keep the other groups in their place", "There would be fewer problems if we treated people more evenly", Likert-type scale from 1, totally disagree, to 5, totally agree). Since the reliability index is very low (α = .49), we decided to exclude the item "No group should dominate in society" to arrive at an α equal to .56. Precautions are still necessary to interpret the results obtained with this scale.

Study 2a

This part of the study includes all participants that completed the experiment before the terrorist attacks of January 2015. Regarding the different information displayed above, we hypothesize that, when time pressure is high (rather than low), the cultural norm of New Secularism will increase anti-Muslim discrimination (H3). We do not expect any effect of multiculturalism and assimilation norms.

Participants

Participants were 107 undergraduate students enrolled in the psychology program at a

French university. The majority of participants were women (87%, N = 93) and the average age was 19.14 years (SD = 1.92, Min = 17, Max = 26). Among our participants, 65.4% were atheists or agnostics, 23.1% were Catholics, and 6.7% were Muslims. All participants filled out a consent form and received course credit for their voluntary participation. Participants

were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions of our 5 x 2 between-subjects design, in which the cultural norm (Control vs. Assimilation vs. Multiculturalism vs.

Colorblind Equality vs. New Secularism) and time pressure (Yes/No) were manipulated.

Due to the division of our initial study into two separate studies, the sample in Study 2a is relatively small given our experimental design. Indeed, a priori power analysis shows that, to detect a mean effect (Cohen's d = .50, as it is usually expected in studies based on TMT or social norms, Burke, Martens & Faucher, 2010), using independent sample t tests (necessary to conduct post-hoc tests) and with a power level of .80, the G*power software [START_REF] Faul | G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences[END_REF] indicates that 51 participants per cell are needed (or 510 participants total given our experimental design). The difficulty and cost associated with running such an experiment with a proper power for post hoc tests are very important.

For this reason, the present experiments (studies 2a, 2b and 3) aim at assessing whether an interaction between cultural norms of integration and time pressure exists in the first place.

Because of the originality of our data, we also decided to conduct post-hoc tests to better understand the nature of relations between these variables, and the potential effect of secularism norm in France. However, it is important that the reader keep in mind that these are exploratory and underpowered. Validity of the measure of discrimination. We measure discrimination using a computerized task developed by [START_REF] Michinov | Social dominance orientation, prejudice, and discrimination: A new computer-based method for studying discriminatory behaviors[END_REF]. In order to guarantee the validity of this measure, we looked at the link between the discrimination scores obtained on this measure and various variables frequently associated with discrimination: generalized prejudices, attitudes towards the Arab-Muslim populations and SDO (see Table 5a). As can be seen, the scores obtained with the organizational hierarchy task are significantly related to generalized prejudice and a measure of SDO, and substantially related to attitudes towards Arab-Muslim populations, confirming the validity of this measure.

Manipulation

Descriptive statistics. Table 6a summarizes the means and standard deviations of discrimination for this study.

Results

In order to test H3, we conducted an ANOVA including cultural norms and time pressure as independent variables, and discriminatory behaviors as dependent variable. This analysis showed a significant interaction effect of cultural norms and time pressure on discriminatory behaviors: F(4, 97) = 2.96, p = .024, η 2 = .109 (see Figure 1). We conducted post-hoc analyses using the L-Matrix method recommended by [START_REF] Howell | Decomposing interactions using GLM in combination with the COMPARE, LMATRIX and MMATRIX subcommands in SPSS[END_REF].

These analyses showed that the effect of time pressure is not significant in the Control condition: F(1, 97) = .09, p = .768, η 2 = .001, the assimilation condition: F(1, 97) = .32, p = .572, η 2 = .003, the multiculturalism condition: F(1, 97) = 1.66, p = .200, η 2 = .017, and the colorblind equality condition: F(1, 97) = .31, p = .577, η 2 = .003. However, we observed a significant effect of time pressure in the new secularism condition: F(1, 97) = 12.99, p < .001,

η 2 = .
128. In other words, participants in the new secularism condition discriminated more when time pressure was high (M = 3.86, SD = .23) rather than low (M = 3.11, SD = .65), which goes along our H3.

In order to compare the results obtained with the organizational hierarchy task to the scores resulting from the related measures, we also looked at the interaction of Cultural Norms x Time Pressure on generalized prejudices and attitudes towards Arab-Muslim populations. The analysis yielded no significant results for attitudes towards Arab-Muslim:

F(4, 97) = 1.05, p = .387, η 2 = .041. However, the interaction effect was significant on generalized prejudice: F(4, 97) = 2.79, p = .031, η 2 = .103. The follow-up analyzes showed that the only significant effect of time pressure was observed in the new secularism condition:

F(1, 97) = 5.40, p = .022, η 2 = .053. In this condition, participants in the time pressure condition (M = 3.22, SD = .80) expressed more generalized prejudice than participants in the no-time pressure condition (M = 2.60, SD = .86, see Figure 2).

Discussion

This study was designed to test the hypotheses that when time pressure is high (rather than low), the cultural norm of new secularism increases anti-Muslim discrimination (H3).

Results did not show any effect of the induction of a colorblind equality norm. This could partly be explained by the fact that our experimental induction does not reflect the idea of French citizenship, which is nevertheless part of the principle [START_REF] Kamiejski | Le modèle républicain d'intégration : implications pour la psychologie des relations entre groupes[END_REF].

However, results showed that discrimination went up when participant's behavior followed the new secularism norm because of the time pressure manipulation, which goes along this hypothesis. The present study thus indicates that cultural norms of integration are important in shaping discriminatory behaviors. The same pattern of results was found for participants' level of generalized prejudice. Despite our small sample size, the size of the effect of new secularism and time pressure on discrimination is high, which indicates, according to OSC (2015), that this effect should be replicated. Study 2b addresses this issue.

Study 2b

Study 2b can be considered as an exact replication of Study 2a. The only difference between Study 2a and Study 2b is that the second one was conducted between January 7 th and February 6 th , 2015. Our aim to study the effect of the social context on discrimination was indeed bolstered by an unforeseen event: the deadly terrorist attack occurring in France on January 7 th 2015 (see Nugier & Guimond, 2016). Previous research relying on a pre/post attack design found that people became more anti-Muslims, and more anti-immigrants following such events (see [START_REF] Jonas | Focus theory of normative conduct and terror-management theory: The interactive impact of mortality salience and norm salience on social judgment[END_REF][START_REF] Rosenblatt | Evidence for terror management theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values[END_REF]. So far, little work in psychology has linked terrorism and cultural protection. Because we manipulated cultural norms, this experiment afforded the unique opportunity to examine whether the psychological effects of terrorism are moderated by the salience of cultural worldviews.

Following the logic of direct replication, it can be hypothesize that, as in Study 2a, when time pressure is high (rather than low), the cultural norm of New Secularism will increase discrimination (H4).

Participants

Participants were 189 undergraduate students enrolled in the psychology program at a

French university. The majority of participants were women (86%, N = 157) and the average age was 18.97 years (SD = 1.37, Min = 17, Max = 27). Among our participants, 60.8% were atheists or agnostics, 25.7% were Catholics, and 8.2% were Muslims. Here again, participants

were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions of our 5 x 2 between-subjects design, in which the cultural norm (Control vs. Assimilation vs. Multiculturalism vs.

Colorblind Equality vs. New Secularism) and time pressure (Yes/No) were manipulated.

Based on the a priori power analysis that we conducted for Study 2a (which yielded 51 participants per cell for a proper power for post-hoc tests), the analyses conducted as part of this study are also underpowered. Once again, this study allows to test the existence of an interaction between cultural norms of integration and time pressure. However, given the scarcity of the data we present (i.e. the fact that the participants of this study have been exposed to real terrorist attacks), we have also chosen to conduct exploratory post-hoc tests studying the nature of the influence of our two independent variables.

Manipulation Checks and Descriptive Statistics

Effectiveness of the time pressure manipulation. We examined the effect of our time pressure manipulation on the time spent by the participants on the organizational hierarchy task. The time pressure manipulation appeared to have a significant effect on time spent by participants on the discrimination task: F(1, 187) = 23.58, p < .001, η 2 = .112.

Participants spent less time on this task in the time pressure condition (M = 54.74 seconds, SD = 24.26) than in the no-time pressure condition (M = 73.65, SD = 29.13).

Validity of the measure of discrimination. We measure discrimination using a computerized task developed by [START_REF] Michinov | Social dominance orientation, prejudice, and discrimination: A new computer-based method for studying discriminatory behaviors[END_REF]. In order to guarantee the validity of this measure, we looked at the link between the discrimination scores obtained on this measure and various variables frequently associated with discrimination: generalized prejudices, attitudes towards the Arab-Muslim populations and SDO (see Table 5b). As can be seen, the scores obtained with the organizational hierarchy task are significantly related to generalized prejudice and a measure of SDO, and substantially related to attitudes towards Arab-Muslim populations, confirming the validity of this measure.

Descriptive statistics. Table 6b summarizes the means and standard deviations of discrimination for this study.

Results

To test our hypotheses, we conducted the exact same ANOVA as in Study 2a. The analysis showed no significant interaction effect of cultural norms and time pressure on discrimination: F(4, 179) = 1.03, p = .395, η 2 = .022. These observations go against results found in Study 2a. As we did in previous study, we also tested the cultural norms x time pressure interaction effect on measures of prejudice. The analysis yielded no significant results on generalized prejudice F(4, 179) = 1.40, p = .237, η 2 = .030 nor on attitudes toward Arab-Muslims: F(4, 179) = .81, p = .520, η 2 = .018.

Exploratory Analyses: A Significant Effect of Terrorist Attacks?

Given that studies 2a and 2b have exactly the same experimental design, we combined data from these 2 studies in order to analyze precisely the impact of the attacks of January CULTURAL NORMS AND DISCRIMINATION 20 2015. We would like to warn the reader that these analyses are exploratory in that we do not have the power to perform a reliable three-way interaction. To test the potential effect of terrorist attacks, we conducted an ANOVA including cultural norms, time pressure and terrorist attacks as independent variables and discrimination as dependent variable. This analysis showed a significant main effect of terrorist attacks: F (1, 276) = 10.42, p = .001, η 2 = .036, revealing a significant decrease in anti-Muslim discrimination after terrorist attacks (M = 3.23, SD = .51) compared to the period before the attacks (M = 3.43, SD = .52). This main effect was qualified by a significant interaction effect of Norms x Time Pressure x Terrorist Attacks: F (4, 276) = 2.99, p = .019, η 2 = .042.

We tested the simple interaction Time Pressure x Terrorist Attacks effects in the different norm conditions by using the LMATRIX command in SPSS (Howel & Lacroix, 2012). This analysis yielded no significant effect on discrimination in the control condition:

F(1, 276) = .00, p = .959, η 2 = .000, in the assimilation condition: F(1, 276) = 1.03, p = .312, η 2 = .004, in the multiculturalism condition: F(1, 276) = 1.36, p = .345, η 2 = .005, and in the colorblind equality condition: F(1, 276) = .07, p = .791, η 2 = .000. However, there was a significant Time pressure x Terror attacks interaction effect in the New Secularism condition:

F(1, 276) = 12.76, p < .001, η 2 = .044. In other words, the difference observed between studies 2a and 2b concerning participants in the new secularism condition is significant.

Discussion

Results of Study 2b did not replicate the interaction effect found in Study 2a.

Discrimination in the new secularism condition stayed low, even when participants were put under time pressure. However, the combination of studies 2a and 2b revealed a significant effect of the attacks on the norms x time pressure interaction. The difference observed before and after the attacks in the new secularism condition is thus statistically confirmed. These results can be interpreted in two different ways: (1) the effects highlighted by study 2a are false positives and do not exist in reality or (2) a change in context influenced the study results. We suggest that the second explanation better reflects what happened between Study 2a and Study 2b. There are several reasons to make this interpretation. The same pattern of results is indeed observed on the measure of discriminatory behavior and on a reliable measure of prejudice. Given the magnitude of the event that occurred between these two studies and the strong link between it and the measured variables, it also seems highly unlikely that this context could have been completely overshadowed by the experimental setting of a laboratory. In short, these experimental findings are in line with the correlational evidence reported by [START_REF] Van Bavel | Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility[END_REF]: The context sensitivity of a topic is a major factor to consider in attempts to reproduce psychological findings. However, this interpretation is based on exploratory and underpowered analyzes and should be confirmed by future research. This is especially true as small samples can lead to a bias in the calculation of power indices (Laken & Alberts, 2017).

We suggest that the events that occurred in France in January 2015 changed the way participants considered the norm of new secularism. Indeed, just after the January 7 attacks, many media and public figures have emphasized the importance of differentiating Islam and Jihad and of recognizing people with Arab-Muslim origins as French citizens (the first person to have put these values on the front of the stage being François Hollande, then President of the French Republic, see Solheim, 2017). This message however is not in line with new secularism. Rather, it suggests a reaffirmation of the original meaning of secularism, in line with what has been called historical secularism (Baubérot, 2012;Roebroeck & Guimond, 2016). Given that our measure of personal support for intergroup ideologies incorporate two items each referring to a different form of secularism, we performed post-hoc correlational analyses that could contribute to shed light on the meaning of our participant's behavior.

Table 7 displays the correlations between personal support for new and historical secularism, generalized prejudice and the discrimination score before the terrorist attack and after. Before the terrorist attack, support for new secularism is correlated significantly and positively with anti-Muslim discrimination (r = .23, p = .016), but not after the terrorist attack (r = .07, p = .328). The reverse is observed for historical secularism which is not related to discrimination before terrorist attacks (r = -.07, p = .479) but yielded a significant and negative link with discrimination (r = -.15, p = .030) after terrorist attacks. A similar pattern is observed for generalized prejudice. This analysis suggests that new secularism is only related to discrimination before the attacks. After the terrorist attacks, historical secularism seems to have become a stronger basis for participants' behavior. In other words, it seems that political discourses reaffirming, after these attacks, the republican values of tolerance and freedom have led to a temporary change in the perceived norm regarding the integration of minorities.

This result is congruent with previous studies conducted after the January, 2015 terrorist attacks. Indeed, Cohu, Maisonneuve and Testé (2016) observed a decrease in attachment to the principle of secularism after these events. The authors interpret this observation as a potential change in the perception of secularism. Going along the same idea, Solheim's results

(2017) reveal an increase in support for restrictions on immigration in the six other European countries, but no change in France. The author interpreted the difference between France and the other European countries as a consequence of the political response to the attacks in France. Taken together, these studies suggest that these events have changed the perception of the French people about the main integration norm in France: it has shifted from new secularism to historical secularism.

Based on that idea, the induction of an historical secularism norm should have impacted discrimination after the attacks. Our manipulation of the colorblind equality norm in Study 2 is close to the notion of historical secularism but not identical with it as it refers to equal rights between employees, but not to the promotion of freedom of conscience that defines historical secularism. Study 3 was designed to experimentally test the effect of an historical secularism norm in a post attack context. Because Study 3 incorporates a change in the independent variable designed to test a specific hypothesis, it follows the logic of conceptual replication.

Study 3

The present study can be considered as a conceptual replication of Study 2a, using the same experimental paradigm. However, instead of the colorblind equality induction, we primed an historical secularism norm. This study was conducted right after the terrorist attacks that took place in Paris on November 13, 2015. As such, the external social context of Study 3 can be seen as similar to that of Study 2b. The purpose of this study is to confirm the idea that terrorist attacks lead French people to reaffirm the historical secularism value.

Thereby, following the logic of direct replication, we will further test the hypothesis that when time pressure is high (rather than low), the cultural norm of new secularism increases anti-Muslim discrimination (H5) whereas following the logic of conceptual replication, we hypothesize that the impact of the cultural norm of historical secularism will be to decrease anti-Muslim discrimination (H6).

Method

Participants. Participants were 135 undergraduate students enrolled in the psychology program at a French university. The majority of participants were women (75%, N = 101, 20 participants did not mention their gender) and the mean age was 18.78 years (SD = 1.78, Min = 17, Max = 27). Among our participants, 55.6% were atheists or agnostics, 35.9% were Catholics and 5.1% were Muslims. As in Studies 2a and 2b, all participants filled out a consent form and received course credit for their voluntary participation. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions of our experimental design: 3 (Cultural Norm: historical secularism vs. new secularism vs. control) x 2 (Time pressure: with vs.

without). As for the two previous studies and based on the a priori power analysis performed in the study 2a (which yielded 51 participants per cell, that is to say 306 participants for this experimental design), we theoretically lack power to perform post-hoc tests. Here again, the nature of our analyses is mainly exploratory.

Procedure. The cover story of the present study was identical to that of Study 2. We manipulated the cultural norm of the organization, which was characterized by either (a) a pleasant working environment (Control condition), (b) a shared striving for secularism, promoting equality between believers and non-believers and freedom of conscience (Historical Secularism), or (c) a shared striving for secularism, banning the display of conspicuous religious signs at work (New Secularism). We reinforced this induction as we previously did in Study 2.

Participants in the Time Pressure condition were told that they had very little time to complete the exercise whereas participants in the No Time Pressure condition did not receive such instruction. In order to reinforce the idea of time pressure, we also pretended to time them during the discrimination task (inspired by the procedure used by [START_REF] Chiu | Motivated cultural cognition: The impact of implicit cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as a function of need for closure[END_REF]. For this, we warned participants that it would be timed and hold a stopwatch in hand during the handover. We pretended to stop the clock when all the participants finished the task. At the end of the experiment, participants were thanked and debriefed.

Measures. Measures of the present study were identical to that of Study 2. Reliability scores were satisfying for generalized prejudice (α = .83) and for attitudes toward Arab-Muslims (α = .94).

Results

As in previous studies, we tested the effect of time pressure on the time taken by participants to complete the discrimination task (in seconds). The effect was significant: F(1, We then conducted an ANOVA including cultural norm and time pressure as independent variables and discrimination as dependent variable. The interaction effect between the independent variables was not significant: F(2, 129) = .32, p = .729, η 2 = .005.

However, the analysis yielded a significant main effect of cultural norms on discrimination:

F(

Discussion

The original contribution of this third study is to suggest (1) that historical secularism, when normative in a social context, can significantly reduce discriminatory behaviors and (2) that the effect of the new secularism on discrimination is not systematic but seems to depend on the perceived legitimacy of this norm. Given that Study 3 was conducted right after the terrorist attack of November 13, 2015 in Paris, the findings go along the idea that, in case of traumatic events, secularism interpreted in the historical meaning can become a defensive wall against prejudice and discrimination. More generally, this third study suggests that, when psychological studies address context-sensitive topics, conceptual replication seems more appropriate than exact replication. Indeed, Study 2a showed a significant effect of the new secularism norm (under time pressure) on discrimination. An exact replication of this study, not taking into account changes in social context, did not allow to replicate this effect.

However, a conceptual replication of this study, taking into account the reaffirmation of the historical version of secularism following the attacks of January 2015, revealed conclusive results.

We did not observe in this study any effect of time pressure, as in Study 2b. Our manipulation, however, was effective on the time taken by the participants to carry out the task of discrimination. We argue that one explanation could be that, right after terrorist attacks, participants systematically and increasingly used cultural norms as a guide to their behavior, with the aim of reaffirming these values against the terrorist threat, as TMT suggests [START_REF] Greenberg | Evidence for terror management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural norm[END_REF][START_REF] Pyszczynski | Thirty Years of Terror Management Theory: From Genesis to Revelation[END_REF])

General Discussion

The goal of the studies presented here was to test the effect of culture-specific intergroup norms on discriminatory behavior. Regarding this hypothesis, the studies suggest that the secularism norm, defining the French sociopolitical context, can directly influence the emergence of discrimination. More precisely, Study 1 showed that new secularism, one of the two components of French republicanism [START_REF] Badea | Modèles d'intégration, identification nationale et attitudes envers les immigrés en France[END_REF][START_REF] Kamiejski | Le modèle républicain d'intégration : implications pour la psychologie des relations entre groupes[END_REF] [START_REF] Roebroeck | Intergroup threat, social dominance, and the malleability of ideology: The importance of conceptual replication[END_REF].

Limitations.

Despite the interest of these results, it is important to note that the present work presents several limits that should be addressed by future studies. First, and as discussed several times throughout this paper, we are aware that most of the analyzes conducted during our research are underpowered. However, we believe that such data are of obvious exploratory interest, as it is rare to have the opportunity to test the effect of a natural variable on manipulated variables in the laboratory. Nevertheless, research should further explore these effects using future studies should test our hypotheses again with larger samples.

Second, our samples are indeed composed of young psychology students. This population's potential specificities (familiarity with certain notions of psychology, political orientation, etc.) could play a role in the influence of the historical and new secularism norms on discrimination. Future research should test these hypotheses with a more representative sample of the French population. Finally, the lack of effect of new secularism after the terrorist attacks could also be attributed to an overall increase in prejudices after the attacks, which would minimize the differences between the different norms induced. Although our results do not support this hypothesis, as there is no evidence for an increase in prejudice after the attacks, future research should test this alternative hypothesis, directly manipulating the terrorist threat for example.

  have examined the extent to which these two dimensions reflect different cultural norms that may be distinctive of the cultural context in France. To begin to fill this void, Study 1 is a descriptive field study designed to set the stage by documenting the nature of predominant integration norm in five countries, including the target country France. Study 2 is a laboratory experiment conducted in France testing the effects of different normative contexts on discrimination against ethno-religious minorities. The main hypothesis tested in Study 2 is based on the findings from Study 1. However, a major change in the social context occurred outside the laboratory while we were conducting this experiment: a deadly terrorist attack in Paris on January 2015 (seeNugier & Guimond, 2016). Adding the effect of this event within the design of the study allowed us to examine the effect of a naturally-occurring change in the social context, in addition to the effect of the change in the social context manipulated in the laboratory. It was thus decided to separate Study 2 into Study 2a, conducted before the terrorist attack, and Study 2b, conducted after the terrorist attack. This allowed us to address a major issue: Are the effects observed in our experiment before the terrorist attack replicated when the exact same procedure is used after the terrorist attack?

  Checks and Descriptive Statistics Effectiveness of the time pressure manipulation. We examined the effect of our time pressure manipulation on the time spent by the participants on the organizational hierarchy task. The time pressure manipulation appeared to have a significant effect on time spent by participants on the discrimination task: F(1, 105) = 34.69, p < .001, η 2 = .248. Participants spent less time on this task in the time pressure condition (M = 50.90 seconds, SD = 15.05) than in the no-time pressure condition (M = 77.81, SD = 29.73).

  133) = 19.90, p < .001, η 2 = .130. Participants in the Time Pressure condition (M = 61.13, SD = 21.01) completed the task faster than participants in the No Time Pressure condition (M = 83.03, SD = 34.35).

  1, 129) = 3.46, p = .034, η 2 = .051. Post-hoc analyses revealed that participants in the historical secularism condition (M = 3.05, SD = .49) discriminated less than participants in the control condition (M = 3.35, SD = .50). No difference was found between the control condition and the new secularism condition (M = 3.22, SD = .56, see Figure3), which is congruent with Study 2b. We conducted a contrast analysis to compare the historical secularism condition with the other two conditions in term of discrimination. We have created a contrast of interest (C1) and a contrast to test the residual variance (C2, using the Hellmert method, see[START_REF] Brauer | L'utilisation des contrastes dans l'analyse des données: Comment tester les hypothèses spécifiques dans la recherche en psychologie?[END_REF]. Contrast 1 was assigned a value of 2 for the Historical Secularism condition, -1 for the New Secularism condition, and -1 for the Control condition. Contrast 2 was assigned a value of 0 for the Historical Secularism condition, 1 for the New Secularism condition, and -1 for the Control condition. The analysis showed a significant effect on discrimination of the contrast of interest C1: β = .21, t = 2.40, p = .018, 95% IC[.014; .143]. The residual contrast C2 was not significant β = -.10, t = -1.14, p = .254, 95% IC[-.174; .046]. In other words, participants in the historical secularism condition discriminated significantly less than participants in the other two conditions.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Effect of Cultural Norms and Time Pressure on discrimination in Study 2a.

Figure 2 .Figure 3 .

 23 Figure 2. Effect of Cultural Norms and Time Pressure on generalized prejudice in Study 2a

  , is perceived as highly normative by French participants. Study 2a suggested that the norm of new secularism, when made salient by time pressure, increases ethnic discrimination. This finding is consistent with all previous research on new secularism in France and suggests that, as argued by[START_REF] Troian | The effect of Social dominance on prejudice towards North-African minorities: Evidence for the role of social representation of Secularism as a legitimizing myth[END_REF], new secularism is "a socially accepted way to justify prejudice" (p. 101) and discriminatory behaviors. While this claim was supported previously by correlational evidence, it is now supported with experimental data. Study 2b, which is an exact replication of Study 2a of the type that can rarely be conducted, does not confirm these results. With the exact same manipulations and procedure, we observe no effect whatsoever of time pressure or intergroup norms. However, we know why. Unlike Study 2a, Study 2b was conducted in the aftermath of a major change in the cultural context: a set of deadly terrorist attacks followed by a huge civic manifestation in all major cities in France reaffirming republican values. Comparing the 107 participants of Study 2a (before the attacks) to the 189 participants of Study 2b (after the attacks) revealed a highly significant effect on behavior showing a decrease in discrimination (see Solheim, 2017 for related evidence). Any interpretation of the results of Study 2 must account for this significant change in the behavior of participants to the exact same laboratory experiment. Our impact of the attacks against Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Kasher (seeNugier & Guimond, 2016). However, priming the norm of new secularism in Study 3 gave results that did not differ from the control condition. Thus, the results we present here make an important contribution to the current debate opposing direct and conceptual replications in social psychology. We have shown that contextual elements outside the laboratory can influence experimental manipulations made in the laboratory. Consistent with Van Bavel et

	interpretation is straightforward. As discussed above, secularism in France is a dual-meaning ideology (Roebroeck & Guimond, 2018). New secularism that led to an increase in discrimination before the attacks was discarded in favor of historical secularism after the attacks. Consistent with this view, evidence was presented showing that discrimination against ethno-religious minorities was related to support for new secularism only before the attacks while support for historical secularism was related to less discrimination only after the attacks. On this basis, Study 3 conceptually replicated Study 2 by adding a new experimental condition priming the historical secularism norm. As predicted, this condition had a significant effect on behavior, decreasing discrimination, a finding consistent with other laboratory variables, can lead to misleading conclusions when studying context-sensitive research on the al. (2016), our findings suggest that direct replication, with its almost exclusive focus on topics (see also

Table 1 .

 1 Factorial analysis of the different normative perceptions items in Study 1.Most of[…] think that life is more pleasant in [the country] since the different ethnic groups keep their way of life alive.

	Note. "[…]" was replaced by French, Canadians, Germans, Americans or English people as a function of the
	country; CB = colorblind laïcité; NS = new secularism; AS = assimilation; MC = multiculturalism.

Most of

[…]

think that foreigners should try harder to adapt to[the country] cultural traditions if they want to stay in [the country].

Table 2 .

 2 Correlations between normative perceptions measures in Study 1.Note. t = single sample t-test comparing participants' mean to the score of the scale; CB: Colorblind Equality; NS: New Secularism; AS: Assimilation; MC: Multiculturalism; *** : p < .001

		M	SD	t	1	2	3
	1. CB	3.84	1.26	-3.50 ***	-
	2. NS	4.43	1.23	9.56 ***	-.04	-
	3. AS	4.93	1.17	21.61 ***	-.29 ***	.31 ***	-
	4. MC	3.66	1.31	-6.94 ***	.40 ***	-.15 ***	-.43 ***

Table 3 .

 3 Means (standard deviations) of normative perception of colorblind equality, new laïcité, multiculturalism, and assimilation for each country in Study 1.Note. Colorblind equality and new secularism have been highlighted by using bold characters because these are the two central dependent variables of the study

				Country
		France	U.K.	U.S.A.	ES Canada	Germany
	Colorblind Equality	3.89 (1.38) 3.85 (1.15) 3.67 (1.25) 4.45 (1.21) 3.38 (1.10)
	New Secularism	5.54 (1.10) 4.29 (1.10) 4.27 (1.27) 3.98 (1.07) 4.59 (1.03)
	Assimilation	5.32 (1.17) 4.92 (1.06) 4.95 (1.07) 4.24 (1.30)	5.36 (.99)
	Multiculturalism	3.14 (1.44) 3.66 (1.25) 3.74 (1.23) 4.39 (1.25) 3.11 (1.06)

Table 4 .

 4 Post-hoc test (Bonferroni) of the effect of the country on normative perceptions comparingFrance to other countries in Study 1.

	I	J	I-J	Sig.	t
	France	U.K.	.04	1.000	.22
		U.S.A.	.20	1.000	1.33
	Colorblind equality	Canada	-.56	.006	-3.22 **
		Germany	.51	.033	2.85 **
	France	U.K.	1.25	.000	8.87 ***
		U.S.A.	1.27	.000	8.58 ***
	New Secularism	Canada	1.56	.000 10.65 ***
		Germany	.95	.000	6.35 ***
	France	U.K.	.40	.050	2.93 **
		U.S.A.	.37	.056	2.80 **
	Assimilation	Canada	1.08	.000	6.43 ***
		Germany	-.04	1.000	-.25
	France	U.K.	-.52	.012	-3.10 **
	Multiculturalism	U.S.A. Canada	-.61 -1.25	.001 -3.53 *** .000 -7.01 ***
		Germany	.03	1.000	.16

Table 5a .

 5a Correlations between the discrimination score and other variables in Study 2a.

			M	SD	t	1	2	3	4	5
	1.	Discrimination	3.43	.52	-	-
	2.	Generalized prejudice 2.88	.68	-1.83 † .32 *** α = .84
	3. M	Attitudes toward A-	3.28	2.19	-10.45 ***	.18 †	.48 *** α = .94
	4.	SDO	1.96	.56	-19.16 ***	.18 †	.58 ***	.33 *** α = .55
	5. bias)	CVs' task (evaluation	-.14	.83	-1.68 †	-.25 **	-.20 *	-.16 †	-.14	-
	6. (candidate's choice) CVs' task	.53	.50	-	-.28 **	-.23 *	-.12	-.21

* .46 *** Note. A-M = Arab-Muslims population; SDO = Social Dominance Orientation; t = single sample t-test comparing (if possible) participants' mean to the mid point of the scale.

Table 5b .

 5b Correlations between the discrimination score and other variables in Study 2b.

			M	SD	t	1	2	3	4	5
	2.	Discrimination	3.23 .51	-	-
	3.	Generalized prejudice	2.82 .67	-3.61 *** .31 *** α = .83
	4.	Attitudes toward A-M	3.04 1.89 -17.88 ***	.14 †	.56 *** α = .94
	5.	SDO	1.94 .52	-28.08 ***	.19 **	.46 ***	.27 ***	α = .56
	6. bias)	CVs' task (evaluation	.13	.77	2.32 †	-.03	-.16 *	-.21 **	-.08	-
	7. choice)	CVs' task (candidate's	.62	.49	-	-.10	-.14 †	-.18 *	.01 .39 ***

Note.

A-M = Arab-Muslims population; SDO = Social Dominance Orientation; t = single sample t-test comparing (if possible) participants' mean to the mid point of the scale.

Table 6a

 6a Means (standard error) of discrimination in Study 2a.

				Norm Condition
		Control	Colorblind Equality	New Secularism	Assimilation Multiculturalism
		3.42	3.46	3.12	3.54	3.23
	No	(.38)	(.50)	(.65)	(.40)	(.52)
	Time	N = 6	N = 12	N = 13	N = 12	N = 11
	Pressure	3.50	3.33	3.86	3.43	3.59
	Yes	(.58)	(.56)	(.23)	(.68)	(.30)
		N = 7	N = 9	N = 11	N = 14	N = 12
	Table 6b
	Means (standard error) of discrimination in Study 2b.
				Norm Condition
		Control	Colorblind Equality	New Secularism	Assimilation Multiculturalism
		3.29	3.29	3.22	3.25	3.22
	No	(.46)	(.53)	(.45)	(.52)	(.46)
	Time	N = 24	N = 17	N = 16	N = 18	N = 18
	Pressure	3.39	3.10	3.00	3.41	3.18
	Yes	(.48)	(.62)	(.62)	(.49)	(.39)
		N = 23	N = 21	N = 19	N = 16	N = 17

Table 6 .

 6 Correlations between Discrimination, Prejudice, Personal Support toward New Secularism and Personal Support toward Historical Secularism before and after terrorist attacks in Paris in Study 2.Note. ***: p < .001; *: p < .05; NS = personal support toward new secularism; HS = personal support toward historical secularism.

	1	2	3

This research grant was supported by ANR 11-FRQU-004-01. Many thanks are due to Nicolas Michinov for his help with the hierarchy task, and to Danae Farges, Cedric Barbosa and Marie Valette for data gathering and formatting.