Gerd Bohner
email: gerd.bohner@uni-bielefeld.de]

Frank Siebler

Roberto González

Andrés Haye

Eike A Schmidt

Situational Flexibility of In-Group-Related Attitudes: A Single Category IAT Study of People with Dual National Identity

Keywords: Germany, immigration, in-group attitudes, national identity, single category implicit association test (SC-IAT), Turks

An experiment was conducted to examine the situational fl exibility of in-group-related attitudes at the implicit and explicit level. Seventy-one men and women with dual, Turkish-German, national identities were asked to think about positive aspects of either their German or their Turkish identity. Later, attitudes toward Germans and Turks were assessed using a single category implicit association test (SC-IAT) and self-report scales. Results showed that attitudes toward Turks were generally more positive than attitudes toward Germans, that SC-IAT scores refl ecting attitudes toward Turks and Germans were unrelated, and that the identity priming affected men's, but not women's, SC-IAT scores. This fi nding is discussed in terms of men's greater fl exibility in national identifi cation. Explicit attitude measures were largely unaffected by the priming.

Researchers have devoted much attention to intergroup relations and how the social context infl uences phenomena such as in-group favoritism and out-group derogation (for a review, see [START_REF] Hewstone | Intergroup bias[END_REF]. Much less is known, however, about the way in which the context might infl uence people's attitudes toward the various in-groups they belong to. In the present research, we studied people who hold dual national identities, examining attitudes toward each of their national ingroups and the responsiveness of these attitudes to experimental variations of identity salience. In doing so, we used a recently developed single category measure of implicit attitudes [START_REF] Karpinski | The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition[END_REF][START_REF] Wigboldus | Single-target implicit associations[END_REF], applying this for the fi rst time to the separate assessment of two in-group attitudes. Before presenting our experiment, we briefl y describe our target population (Turks in Germany), consider the benefits and limitations of a dual identity, then review conceptualizations of implicit and explicit attitudes, derive hypotheses about their malleability, and speculate about potential gender effects. Finally, we describe the single category measure and discuss its potential for the present research.

Turks in Germany

Turkish immigration to Germany dates back to the 1960s, when West Germany began recruiting workers from abroad. Although the recruitment of workers from Turkey was offi cially terminated in 1973, the Turkish population in Germany as a whole kept growing, mainly because a policy of family reunion allowed migrant workers' spouses and children to immigrate [START_REF] S ¸en | Zur 40jährigen Geschichte der türkischen Migranten[END_REF]S ¸en & Wierth, 1992). Today, more than two million people of Turkish origin live in Germany, whose current overall population is 82 million. More than 600,000 Turks have acquired German citizenship (Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration, 2004). The participants in our study were adults who identify themselves as both Turkish and German, usually because of a family migration background.

Dual identities

People who embrace two cultural or national identities 1 present an intriguing case for researchers of social identity. On the one hand, they can be viewed as possessing a valuable resource that may foster fl exibility in accommodating to varying social contexts. The benefi ts associated with a dual identity for promoting positive intergroup attitudes have been widely documented. A dual identity approach appears especially attractive for minority group members who may resist a superordinate identity if accepting that identity means that their own distinctiveness will be lost (see e.g. [START_REF] Berry | Cultural relations in plural societies: Alternatives to segregation and their sociopsychological implications[END_REF][START_REF] Berry | Intercultural relations in plural societies[END_REF][START_REF] González | Generalization of positive attitude as a function of subgroup and superordinate group identifi cations in intergroup contact[END_REF], 2006;[START_REF] Hornsey | Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations[END_REF]. On the other hand, a dual identity may also entail a degree of ambivalence, and the experience of 'sitting on the fence' between cultures (see e.g. [START_REF] Berry | Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation[END_REF]. For German Turks, the ambivalence may be pronounced because of their need to deal with identities grounded in dramatically different cultures, one more collectivist and with a strong Muslim tradition, the other more individualist and secular.

Implicit and explicit group-related attitudes

To measure group-related attitudes, researchers have been using both explicit and implicit measures, and the two often do not correlate highly. This may be so because some phenomena of social identity and intergroup attitudes operate at an unconscious level, yielding attitudes (or evaluative associations) that are not amenable to conscious introspection and self-report, whereas others are more deliberate and refl ective (e.g. [START_REF] Strack | Refl ective and impulsive determinants of social behavior[END_REF]. Implicit and explicit measures would thus tap two different types of attitude that may coexist in a person's cognitive system (e.g. [START_REF] Wilson | A model of dual attitudes[END_REF]. A less extensive implicit-explicit defi nition does not presuppose different types of attitude, but instead refers only to the measures being used: an implicit measure of attitude provides an estimate of a person's attitude without the researcher having to ask for a self-report of that (same) attitude (cf. [START_REF] Webb | Nonreactive measures in the social sciences[END_REF]. Differences between implicit and explicit measurement would then refl ect that people may be reluctant to admit on the self-report measure what the implicit measurement reveals about their attitudes. Thus, whenever respondents are motivated to distort their attitudes in a self-report, implicit measures may help to gain a more accurate understanding of attitudinal dynamics (for further discussion, see [START_REF] Fazio | Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use[END_REF].

A conceptual distinction between implicit and explicit attitudes (for a review, see [START_REF] Hofmann | A meta analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self report measures[END_REF] may rely on different sources of each type of attitude [START_REF] Rudman | Sources of implicit attitudes[END_REF]. Three of the sources discussed by Rudman may be particularly relevant to our present research: implicit attitudes seem to be caused by early (vs. recent) experiences (e.g. [START_REF] Rudman | Implicit romantic fantasies and women's interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect?[END_REF], affective (vs. cognitive) experiences (e.g. [START_REF] Rudman | Unlearning' automatic biases: The malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes[END_REF], and the cultural milieu (e.g. [START_REF] Haye | Systemperpetuating asymmetries between conscious and unconscious intergroup attitudes among indigenous and non-indigenous Chileans[END_REF][START_REF] Rudman | Unlearning' automatic biases: The malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes[END_REF]. Each of these factors points to the possibility that experiences in a person's family of origin may shape implicit group-related attitudes, whereas explicit grouprelated attitudes may be the result of more recent, cognitive learning.

Other research has shown, however, that implicit group-related attitudes may be highly context-sensitive. For examples, they are subject to priming effects [START_REF] Dasgupta | On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals[END_REF] as well as variations in focus of attention [START_REF] Wittenbrink | Spontaneous prejudice in context: Variability in automatically activated attitudes[END_REF]; for a review, see [START_REF] Blair | The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice[END_REF]. More generally, implicit measures have been shown to capture both stable individual differences and occasion-specifi c variance (Schmukle & Egloff, 2006). It therefore seems useful to study both implicit and explicit attitudes in order to explore the contextual malleability of attitudes, especially in a domain where little previous research is available.

Malleability of implicit and explicit group attitudes

We assumed that, despite their dual identities, our target population's Turkish identity would generally be more prominent, because it is grounded in their culture of origin (see [START_REF] González | Generalization of positive attitude as a function of subgroup and superordinate group identifi cations in intergroup contact[END_REF][START_REF] Rudman | Sources of implicit attitudes[END_REF]. Furthermore, membership in a minority group is particularly salient in a person's self-concept. In open-ended self-descriptions, research participants were more likely to spontaneously refer to their own gender or ethnicity if they belonged to the numerical minority on that dimension; this has been demonstrated with both chronic [START_REF] Mcguire | Salience of ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a function of one's ethnic distinctiveness in the social environment[END_REF] and transient [START_REF] Cota | Salience of gender and sex composition of ad hoc groups: An experimental test of distinctiveness theory[END_REF]) minority status.

Extending these findings to people with both Turkish and German identities, we might expect their Turkish (minority) identity to have a greater impact on self-related judgment than their German (majority) identity. Also, to the extent that people are motivated to hold positive attitudes toward their ingroups [START_REF] Tajfel | The social identity theory of intergroup behavior[END_REF], the chronically greater salience of Turkish identity should produce a chronically more positive attitude toward Turks (vs. Germans). These expectations are in line with fi ndings that group-related attitudes and stereotypes are often rather diffi cult to change (see [START_REF] Fiske | Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination[END_REF]. However, according to a current conceptualization, attitudes may be understood as temporary construals that change with the context in which they are made [START_REF] Schwarz | The construction of attitudes[END_REF]. If so, then it should be possible to reverse the relative impact of a person's minority and majority identities on judgment by subtle variations of the judgment context. In the present research, we primed positive aspects of either the Turkish or the German identity of people identifying with both nations; the priming procedure was aimed at temporarily either increasing or removing any chronic advantage in salience that a minority group membership may have.

Sex differences in fl exibility of identifi cation?

We were also interested in potential sex differences in the fl exibility of national identifi cation. In Turkey, as in other countries with a Muslim tradition, the relative status of women is lower than in Germany (see e.g. United Nations, 2005, pp. 304-306). Females growing up in a Turkish family in Germany are thus likely to be educationally restricted more than males, which may prevent females from 'trying out' cultural fl exibility. As a result, Turkish men may both objectively have greater experience and subjectively feel more at ease 'switching' between cultures, compared to Turkish women (for related results with Turkish immigrants in Canada, see [START_REF] Ataca | Psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation of Turkish immigrant couples in Canada[END_REF].

In a similar vein, the social psychological literature on gender differences in self construal suggests that men construct and maintain a more independent (vs. interdependent) selfconstrual compared to women [START_REF] Cross | Models of the self: Self-construals and gender[END_REF]. Although men's behaviors are designed to form connections with other people as well, they do so in a broader social sphere. Whereas women's sociality is oriented toward dyadic close relationships, men's sociality seems to be oriented toward a larger group [START_REF] Baumeister | What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson[END_REF]; see also [START_REF] Sidanius | Gender, ethnic status, and ideological asymmetry: A social dominance interpretation[END_REF].

Other data, however, suggest an opposite conclusion about sex differences. There is evidence that among second-generation Turkish immigrants, females tend to be more fl uent in German, and reach higher education levels and better results than males [START_REF] Polat | Soziale und kulturelle Identität türkischer Migranten der zweiten Generation in Deutschland [Social and cultural identity of Turkish migrants of the second generation in Germany[END_REF]. Although the females' apparently stronger focus on school work may be seen as an indirect consequence of their restricted freedom to engage in other activities, it may also refl ect greater motivation on the part of females compared to males to integrate themselves into German culture. This latter interpretation would be in line with Polat's fi nding that female immigrants were more likely than male immigrants to endorse a 'bicultural' (vs. 'Turkish') social identity (see also S ¸en, 1999). Overall, the literature thus points to opposing possibilities regarding men's and women's situational flexibility of identifi cation with their Turkish and German ingroups; these were also explored in the current research.

Assessment of implicit group attitudes with a single category measure

The most popular implicit measure in recent years has been the implicit association test (IAT; [START_REF] Greenwald | Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test[END_REF]. In the IAT, participants use two keys on the computer keyboard to categorize exemplars of four categories that appear on the screen: two target categories (e.g. German names vs. Turkish names) and two evaluative poles (e.g. positive vs. negative words). In critical trial blocks, one target category and one evaluative category share the same response key. If, in our example, a participant responds faster if German names and positive words share a key than if Turkish names and positive words share a key, this is taken to indicate a relative implicit preference for Germans over Turks. Despite its usefulness in many domains (see [START_REF] Greenwald | Health of the implicit association test at age 3[END_REF][START_REF] Nosek | The implicit association test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review[END_REF], a limitation of the IAT is that it allows one to measure only relative attitudes toward pairs of attitude objects (e.g. Germans vs. Turks, but not simply attitudes toward Germans). This poses a problem in intergroup research, where it can be conceptually useful to treat in-group and out-group evaluations as separate variables. In-group favoritism and out-group derogation can be asymmetrical, and one process does not necessarily implicate the other (see e.g. [START_REF] Mummendey | Positivenegative asymmetry in social discrimination[END_REF].

Studying similar asymmetries at the implicit level would be impossible with a standard IAT (see also [START_REF] Siebler | The category-focus implicit association test[END_REF]. For our present research, it also seemed vital to assess implicit attitudes toward Germans and Turks not only in terms of a bipolar, relative comparison, but also as independent constructs. Assuming that people would not normally derogate either of their in-group identities, a standard IAT might create an artifi cial bipolarity in the assessment process.

We therefore used a variant of the IAT that was designed for the assessment of implicit attitudes toward single targets. Two groups of researchers have independently proposed a conceptually identical instrument, called 'singletarget IAT' [START_REF] Wigboldus | Single-target implicit associations[END_REF] or 'single category IAT' (SC-IAT; [START_REF] Karpinski | The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition[END_REF]. Its main modifi cation of the standard IAT consists of trial blocks in which stimuli representing only one target category (e.g. either Turkish names or German names) share a key with an evaluative concept (e.g. positive words), whereas the other key is used to respond only to evaluative concept stimuli (e.g. negative words). By comparing response latencies between blocks where the target category is paired with positive stimuli and blocks where the target category is paired with negative stimuli, a single-category implicit evaluation score can be computed (see Method section for further detail). In our current research we used SC-IATs measuring unipolar implicit evaluations of Germans and Turks, respectively, followed by standard IAT blocks measuring bipolar implicit evaluations of Turks versus Germans (cf. [START_REF] Karpinski | The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition[END_REF][START_REF] Wigboldus | Single-target implicit associations[END_REF].

Research has shown that the SC-IAT is useful in locating the origin of in-group-out-group differences in implicit evaluation: Karpinski and Steinman (2006, Study 3) found that Whites' signifi cant pro-White scores on a standard Black-White race IAT refl ected in-group favoritism (as indicated by a positive White SC-IAT score) but not out-group derogation (as indicated by a neutral Black SC-IAT score). To our knowledge, however, there have been no studies using the SC-IAT for assessing separate implicit evaluations of different in-groups. As outlined above, we believe that the dual-identity paradigm is ideal for further highlighting the limitations of the standard IAT and demonstrating the usefulness of the SC-IAT in studying in-group attitudes per se. Also, our present study was the fi rst to apply an experimental variation of identity salience to examine the contextual malleability of SC-IAT scores.

Summary of hypotheses and exploratory research questions

Based on the above discussion, we formulated two hypotheses. Hypothesis 1: German Turks' attitudes towards Turks will be more positive overall than their attitudes towards Germans. Hypothesis 2 : Attitudes towards Turks (Germans) will be positively affected by the priming of positive aspects associated with being Turkish (German). In addition, we explored sex differences in responsiveness to the priming without committing ourselves to a directional hypothesis.

In principle, our hypotheses pertain to both explicit and implicit attitudes. Whether effects of identity priming and potential sex differences would be stronger for implicit or for explicit measures was an open question. On the one hand, implicit measures may be more affected, because they are free from the mitigating effects of selfpresentation or subjective norms (e.g. 'I ought to honor my Turkish heritage'). On the other hand, implicit measures may be less affected because they tap deeply ingrained, core associations [START_REF] Rudman | Sources of implicit attitudes[END_REF][START_REF] Wilson | A model of dual attitudes[END_REF], and only part of their variance may refl ect situational infl uences [START_REF] Schmukle | A latent statetrait analysis of implicit and explicit personality measures[END_REF].

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited for a study on 'Turkish/German dual national identity' at the University of Bielefeld and at locations where one was likely to encounter people from our target population (e.g. a Turkish community center). Subjectively having both Turkish and German national identities was a prerequisite for participation, but there were no formal requirements regarding citizenship. The sample consisted of 71 adults (40 female, 31 male; mean age 25.7 years), who were all residents of Germany. Self-reported citizenship was roughly representative of Turks in Germany (only Turkish: 42; only German: 25; both Turkish and German: 4). Sixty-four participants indicated that their parents were Turkish, and 33 had Turkish partners. Each participant was paid 5 euros.

Procedure and design

The study was run on notebook computers by an experimental program written in Visual Basic. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two identity priming conditions (Turkish vs. German). They were asked, depending on condition, to think about either their Turkish or their German identity and to type into several boxes what they thought was positive about being Turkish (or German, respectively), listing one thought per box. After this thought-listing task, they completed either the implicit or the explicit attitude measures (see below). Then they were shown the thought listing screen again, including the thoughts they had entered earlier, and given an opportunity to add further thoughts if they so wished. This was done to refresh the identity priming manipulation before moving on to the remaining attitude measures. Participants who had fi rst completed the implicit measures now completed the explicit measures, and vice versa. Later, participants reported their sex, age, occupation, and nationality, their parents' nationality, and (where applicable) their partner's nationality. At the end of the session they were thanked for their participation, were paid and debriefed.

Implicit attitude measures

Overview In the SC-IAT section of the study, participants responded to stimulus words on the computer screen by pressing one of two dedicated keys on the computer keyboard. Stimuli were Turkish and German fi rst names, as well as positive and negative nouns. We collected three measures: (a) an SC-IAT score indicating the implicit evaluation of the concept Turkish (Turkish SC-IAT), (b) an SC-IAT score indicating the implicit evaluation of the concept German (German SC-IAT), and (c) a standard IAT score indicating the relative implicit evaluation of the concept Turkish as compared to the concept German (standard IAT).

Selection of stimulus words

To represent the concepts Turkish and German, respectively, we used fi ve Turkish fi rst names (Ali, Bülent, Feramis, Mustafa, Mehmet) and fi ve German fi rst names (Ferdinand, Jürgen, Max, Michael, Werner) [treason]), which, in a pilot test, were shown to differ signifi cantly from the scale midpoint in the intended direction on a scale from negative (1) to positive (7), but not to differ from the scale midpoint on a scale from Turkish (1) to German (7). To familiarize participants with these materials, the SC-IAT started with the presentation of the complete stimulus lists.

Trial blocks Participants responded to 20 stimulus words in each of seven trial blocks (see Table 1 for an overview). Because of restrictions of the fi eld setting, we used a smaller number of trials than is usually employed in laboratory research (cf. [START_REF] Karpinski | The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition[END_REF]. Each stimulus word was shown once within a given block. Incorrect responses were signaled by the computer and had to be corrected. Within blocks, stimuli were presented in a random order, with an inter-stimulus interval of 500 ms. Block 1 served as a practice block. Participants

Notes:

The following variables were fully counterbalanced: (1) left vs. right assigment of 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant' stimuli (this remained constant across blocks within each condition), (2) German vs. Turkish representing the fi rst target assessed in blocks 2 and 3, and (3) fi rst target paired fi rst with positive vs. negative items. The key assignments in the two rightmost columns thus represent one example that may be used as a template to reconstruct all eight versions. SC = single category; IAT = implicit association test.

discriminated between pleasant and unpleasant words by pressing either the left-hand or the right-hand response key, as indicated by labels appearing at the top of the computer screen.

Blocks 2 to 5 represented the SC-IAT blocks. In Block 2, stimuli representing one of the target concepts (e.g. German) were shown in addition. They required the same response as one of the evaluative concepts (e.g. pleasant). Thus, participants pressed one response key if the stimulus represented either the target concept or the evaluative concept associated to it in the present block (e.g. pleasant or German), but pressed the other key if the stimulus represented the remaining evaluative concept (e.g. unpleasant).

In Block 3, stimuli from the same target concept as in the previous block were shown, but shared the response key with the opposite evaluative concept. The difference in the average response time per trial between Blocks 2 and 3 was defi ned as a participant's single category IAT score for that target concept. Blocks 4 and 5 were similar to the preceding two blocks, but replaced the fi rst target concept with the second one. As before, the difference in mean response times between Blocks 4 and 5 was defi ned as the single category IAT score toward the second target.

Blocks 6 and 7 represented standard IAT blocks. Stimulus words from all four categories were assigned to responses such that one of the target concepts shared a response key with one of the evaluative concepts, whereas the other target concept shared a response key with the other evaluative concept. For instance, in Block 6, participants may have been asked to press the left-hand key in response to pleasant or Turkish stimuli, and to press the right-hand key in response to unpleasant or German stimuli. Importantly, the assignment of target concepts to evaluative concepts was then reversed in Block 7. The difference in average response times between Blocks 6 and 7 defi ned a participant's standard IAT score, i.e. a relative preference for one target concept over the other. 2

Computation of response time data

Response times of less than 300 ms or more than 3000 ms were recoded into these boundary values (see [START_REF] Greenwald | Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test[END_REF]. Blockwise mean response times were then computed for correct responses. For the SC-IAT scores, we subtracted the average latency of the block where the target concept shared a response key with positive nouns from the average latency of the block where the target concept shared a key with negative nouns. Thus, positive (negative) Turkish SC-IAT scores indicate a positive (negative) implicit evaluation of Turks, and positive (negative) German SC-IAT scores indicate a positive (negative) implicit evaluation of Germans. The standard IAT was scored such that positive (negative) scores indicate a relative preference for Turks over Germans (Germans over Turks).

Reliability Response errors and extreme response times (above 3000 ms or below 300 ms) occurred only rarely (6% and 3%, respectively). The internal consistency (odd-even reliability estimates based on the Spearman-Brown formula) was acceptable for the German SC-IAT (r tt = .60) and the Turkish SC-IAT (r tt = .64), but rather modest for the standard IAT (r tt = .32). The latter result may partly be explained by the small number of trials (see below for further discussion).

Explicit attitude and identifi cation measures

Explicit attitudes were assessed with a variety of scales tapping evaluative beliefs and feelings about each of the nationality groups. Furthermore, the perceived status of and identifi cation with each national group were assessed with several items.

Relative status and identifi cation

We assessed the perceived relative status of the two nationality groups using two bipolar items: 'Which group generally enjoys a higher reputation?' and 'Which group generally has more infl uence?' (1 the Germans, 7 the Turks). Responses were averaged to form an index of perceived relative status (α = .58). Three items referred to identifi cation with each nationality: 'How much do you consider yourself to be Turkish (German)?', 'How much do you enjoy being Turkish (German)?', and 'How important is it for you to be Turkish (German)?' (1 not at all, 7 very). Responses were averaged for each target group (Turks: α = .75; Germans: α = .79). Three further items were averaged to assess the relative identifi cation with Turkish versus German nationality along a single bipolar dimension: 'Where would you like to live after retirement?', 'Where would you like to be buried/cremated?', and 'When there is a sports competition between Germany and Turkey, which team do you normally support?' (1 defi nitely Turkey, 7 defi nitely Germany; α = .63).

Prejudice Explicit prejudices toward Turks and Germans were measured with three items taken from [START_REF] Pettigrew | Subtle and blatant prejudice in western Europe[END_REF] prejudice scale: 'In principle, I could imagine myself having children with a German (Turk)'; 'In principle, I could imagine having a sexual relationship with a German (Turk)'; 'I would not mind if a German (Turk) married into my family' (1 strongly disagree, 7 completely agree). Responses were averaged for each target group (Turks: α = .64; Germans: α = .72) and recoded so that higher scores on these measures indicate greater prejudice.

Evaluation Another explicit evaluation measure consisted of fi ve items for each target group: 'How much do you like (admire/trust/respect/ like to cooperate with) Germans (Turks)?' (1 not at all, 7 very much). Responses were averaged for each target group (Turks: α = .80; Germans: α = .80).

Stereotyping Stereotyping of Germans and of Turks was each measured with 16 adjective items that had been derived from a larger list. 3 Eight positive (e.g. hospitable, dependable) and eight negative items (e.g. aggressive, cold) were presented twice, once referring to Turks and once referring to Germans (1 does not apply at all, 7 applies exactly). To obtain commensurable stereotyping indices, we combined all eight positive and all eight negative items, respectively, for each target group. This resulted in the following variables: positive stereotyping of Turks (α = .70), positive stereotyping of Germans (α = .66), negative stereotyping of Turks (α = .65), and negative stereotyping of Germans (α = .61).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Priming manipulation check Participants closely followed the instructions of the identity priming procedure. The mean number of thoughts listed was 4.30. Independent judges confi rmed that participants listed almost exclusively positive (92%) aspects of their Turkish or German identity, respectively, and that 97% of thoughts pertained to the identity requested in experimental instructions.

Intercorrelations among all dependent variables are shown in Table 2. The signifi cance criterion for all analyses to follow is p < .05.

Intercorrelations among explicit measures

The explicit self-report measures (status, prejudice, evaluation, identifi cation, and stereotyping) showed low to moderate intercorrelations overall, with the signs of signifi cant correlations generally in the expected direction. Overall, higher identifi cation with a given group was associated with less prejudice toward that group, more positive evaluations of that group, etc. Two interesting exceptions should be noted: the more participants identified with their German in-group, the more they ascribed negative stereotypes to Germans (r = .41); also, more positive stereotyping of Turks went along with more prejudiced beliefs about Turks (r = .46) (both p < .01). These fi ndings suggest that by embracing a given national identity, negative aspects of that identity may come to be endorsed as well.

Implicit measures

The correlation between the Turkish SC-IAT and the standard IAT was moderate but significant (r = .35, p = .003) whereas the German SC-IAT was unrelated to the standard IAT (r = .10, p = .41). Interestingly, implicit attitudes toward Germans and Turks, as measured by the SC-IAT, were unrelated overall (r = .06, p = .60). These results speak to the usefulness of a separate assessment of implicit attitudes toward each of the two groups.

Correlations between implicit and explicit measures The SC-IAT and standard IAT scores

M (SD) Reliability a (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (a) Relative status b
(2)

M (SD) Reliability a (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) Table 2 (Continued)
were generally unrelated to explicit measures of perceived status, prejudice, and evaluation. Small but signifi cant correlations were found for both the Turkish SC-IAT and the standard IAT with relative identifi cation (both r = .25, p < .05). Somewhat surprisingly, more pro-Turkish scores on the standard IAT were associated with less negative stereotypes of Germans (r = -.33, p < .01).

Main analyses: Effects of priming and participant sex on the dependent variables

The hypotheses were tested, and gender effects explored, using 2 (priming: Turkish identity salient vs. German identity salient) × 2 (sex of participant: male vs. female) between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA), and mixed-model 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVAs additionally including target group (Turks vs. Germans) as a repeated-measures factor where applicable.

Implicit attitude measures

The Turkish SC-IAT score was signifi cantly larger than zero (grand mean = 134 ms) (t(70) = 4.97, p < .001), indicating a positive evaluation overall. In line with Hypothesis 2, a strong effect of identity priming was found: participants were much faster in associating Turkish names with positive than negative words when their Turkish identity had been primed (M = 195 ms) than when their German identity had been primed (M = 68 ms) (F(1, 67) = 8.05, p = .006). This effect was qualifi ed by an interaction of priming and participant sex (F(1, 67) = 3.98, p < .05). Simple effects tests revealed that the priming effect was significant for males (F(1, 67) = 10.17, p = .002), but not for females (F(1, 67) < 1) (see Figure 1 for means).

The German SC-IAT score did not differ from zero (grand mean = -16 ms) (t(70) = -0.72, p = .48). The ANOVA revealed an opposite pattern compared to the Turkish SC-IAT (see Figure 1 for means), although both the main effect of priming and the interaction of priming and participant sex failed to reach signifi cance (all p > .11).

A mixed-model ANOVA of both SC-IAT measures, using target as a within-subjects factor, yielded both a signifi cant interaction of priming and target (F(1, 67) = 7.55, p = .008), and a signifi cant three-way interaction of participant sex, priming, and target (F(1, 67) = 6.50, p = .01). Follow-up mixed-model analyses were conducted within each sex. For females, this analysis showed only a main effect of target (supporting Hypothesis 1) (F(1, 38) = 9.22, p = .004) (all other F < 1), whereas for males, we found an interaction of priming and target (supporting Hypothesis 2) (F(1, 29) = 10.12, p = .003) (F < 1 for the priming main effect). These fi ndings so far suggest that males show greater situational fl exibility than females in their national identifi cation at an implicit level.

The standard IAT refl ected an implicit preference for Turks over Germans (grand mean = 117 ms), t(70) = 4.77, p < .001 for the difference from zero, supporting Hypothesis 1. The ANOVA revealed no signifi cant effects of either identity priming or participant sex (all p > .09).

Perceived status, identifi cation, and explicit attitude measures

Responses on the status, identifi cation, and explicit attitude measures were mostly unaffected by the priming manipulation. The only signifi cant effect in the 2 × 2-ANOVAs was an interaction of priming and sex of participant on the evaluation of Turks (F(1, 67) = 4.04, p < .05), where females' scores tended to be lower when their German (vs. Turkish) identity had been primed (M = 4.25 vs. 4.81), whereas males' scores showed an opposite trend (M = 5.25 vs. 4.73). However, neither of the simple effects of priming within levels of sex was signifi cant (both p > .11).

For the relative measures of perceived status and identifi cation, comparisons of the grand mean with the neutral scale midpoint revealed that participants perceived the status of Turks as lower than that of Germans (M = 3.57) (t(70) = -2.48, p = .02), suggesting that they experienced being Turkish as a minority identity. At the same time, in line with Hypothesis 1, they identifi ed more strongly with Turks than with Germans (M = 5.30) (t(70) = 8.41, p < .001).

Also in line with Hypothesis 1, 2 × 2 × 2 mixed ANOVAs yielded only main effects of target group on prejudice and identifi cation, showing that participants had lower prejudice against Turks than Germans (F(1, 67) = 37.98, p < .001), and identifi ed more strongly with Turks than with Germans (F(1, 67) = 93.63, p < .001) (see Table 2 for means). Neither of these effects was qualifi ed by priming or sex of participant (all p > .09).

Stereotype measures For only one of the stereotype measures did the 2 × 2 ANOVA yield a signifi cant main effect of identity priming: when their German identity had been primed, participants ascribed more negative stereotypic attributes to Turks (M = 4.10) than when their Turkish identity had been primed (M = 3.77) (F(1, 67) = 4.29, p = .04); (all other effects p > .12). This result supports Hypothesis 2 for this explicit measure. For the remaining three stereotype measures, no signifi cant effects were found in the 2 × 2 ANOVAs (all p > .21).

A 2 × 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA on the positive stereotypes yielded a main effect of target: In line with Hypothesis 1, participants generally ascribed more positive stereotypic attributes to Turks (M = 5.31) than to Germans (M = 4.10) (F(1, 67) = 67.66, p < .001). This effect was not qualifi ed by participant sex or priming (all further F < 1). A 2 × 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA on the negative stereotypes revealed no signifi cant effects (all p > .07). See Table 2 for means.

Discussion

Asymmetric effects of identity priming

The priming of one of two national identities affected people's implicit in-group-related attitudes. This result is in line with our second hypothesis and with previous research, which had shown that implicit attitudes are susceptible to priming effects [START_REF] Dasgupta | On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals[END_REF][START_REF] Kühnen | How robust is the IAT? Measuring and manipulating implicit attitudes of East and West Germans[END_REF]. Our study extends this line of research by demonstrating that the SC-IAT enables researchers to locate priming effects more precisely by studying the implicit evaluation of separate in-groups. Our results showed that the priming affected the implicit evaluation of participants' dominant (Turkish) group identity more strongly than that of their less dominant (German) group identity. A standard bipolar IAT would not have allowed this distinction to be made, even if it had detected a priming effect (it only showed a nonsignifi cant trend).

Only two of the explicit measures, both pertaining to Turks as the target group, showed a priming effect: under German (vs. Turkish) identity priming, negative stereotyping of Turks was generally increased, and females (but not males) tended to evaluate Turks less positively. While the stereotyping result is fully in line with Hypothesis 2, we currently have no explanation why the priming effect on the evaluation measure is restricted to females, a pattern that runs counter to the gender effect on the SC-IAT (see below). Also, it should be noted that, in terms of variance accounted for, the size of the priming main effect on the Turkish SC-IAT (η 2 = .11) was about twice as large as the priming main effect on explicit negative stereotyping of Turks (η 2 = .06) or the priming by sex interaction effect on the evaluation of Turks (η 2 = .05) Interestingly, however, most of the explicit measures did not show a priming effect at all. One reason for this general absence of a priming effect may be that participants' Turkish identity predominated over their German identity. This preponderance was present on both implicit and explicit indicators, as predicted in Hypothesis 1. Participants were certainly aware of their relative preference for their Turkish identity and may thus have been reluctant to change their responses to the self-report measures in line with the priming. Such effects of self-presentation would not be expected to affect measures of implicit evaluation. This conjecture could be tested in future research by systematically varying self-presentation motives and observing their effects on both implicit and explicit attitudes.

In addition, the explicit and evaluative nature of the priming manipulation, where participants were instructed to list only positive aspects of one identity, might have activated conversational norms that caused participants to refrain from expressing group favoritism on many of the explicit evaluation measures. Having already listed several positive things about their Turkish (or German) identity, participants might have considered it redundant to provide us with such 'old' information again on some of the explicitly evaluative self-report measures (see [START_REF] Bless | The informative functions of research procedures: Bias and the logic of conversation[END_REF][START_REF] Clark | Comprehension of the given-new contract[END_REF]. This problem might be avoided in future research by using less explicit priming procedures. More importantly, our results suggest that the SC-IAT scores were unaffected by conversational norms, as indeed they should be, assuming that people do not intentionally communicate evaluations when completing the SC-IAT. This points to another strength of the SC-IAT as a measure of group-related attitudes.

Sex differences in the fl exibility of group identities?

We had speculated about general sex differences in self-construals as well as gender-related status differences in the Turkish culture that might lead to male (vs. female) Turks growing up in Germany experiencing greater fl exibility in their national identifi cation. Conversely, educational statistics and survey data had suggested that females may show higher motivation to embrace the more egalitarian German culture, resulting in a tendency for females to respond more strongly to the priming manipulation than males. As far as implicit evaluations are concerned, our data are in line with the fi rst possibility: males, but not females, showed clear-cut priming effects in their implicit evaluations of Turks, and a complementary trend in their implicit evaluations of Germans.

It would be highly interesting to examine the replicability and scope of this gender difference. Is it specifi c to the target group studied, or would it generalize to other immigrant groups? Regarding their status in society, Turkish women in Germany are in a double minority situation. For a Turkish woman, mentally construing herself as a German woman thus means a more extensive change of identity because it entails both a different nationality and a different self-construal in terms of the conventional female role. In other words, the change is from Turkish to German as well as from the role of traditional Muslim woman to the role of egalitarian Western woman. For men, on the other hand, the change in terms of national identity is similar, whereas the construal of the male gender role may not differ as much as the construal of the female gender role between the German and Turkish cultures. If there is in fact greater homogeneity of men's (compared to women's) conventional role and status across cultures, men should generally show greater fl exibility in their national identifi cation than women. Further research should address this intriguing possibility.

The SC-IAT as a single-category measure of implicit group-related attitudes

From a methodological point of view, our results corroborate the usefulness of the SC-IAT as a measure of implicit group-related attitudes. Given the fi eld setting and the relatively small number of trials, our SC-IAT measures of attitudes toward Germans and Turks had an acceptable level of internal consistency. Replicating previous fi ndings [START_REF] Karpinski | The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition[END_REF][START_REF] Wigboldus | Single-target implicit associations[END_REF], they showed only zero to moderate relations, respectively, to an embedded standard IAT that pinpointed the two attitude objects against each other. Furthermore, implicit attitudes toward Turks and Germans, as measured by the SC-IAT, were statistically independent of each other. Thus, forcing participants to implicitly evaluate one attitude object against the other, as is done with the standard IAT, may create an artifi cial bipolarity that obscures the view on different empirical relations for the two attitude objects of interest. Our data show that this is true not only for in-group versus outgroup attitudes (as was shown by Karpinski & Steinman, 2006, Study 3), but also for attitudes toward different in-groups.

Our experimental results go beyond previous research by showing that the SC-IAT is suitable for assessing effects of experimental context variations. In this regard, it seems to be a more sensitive measure than the standard IAT. Like most of the explicit attitude and identifi cation measures, the standard IAT indicated a strong pro-Turkish bias that seemed unaffected by experimental condition or sex of participant, whereas the SC-IATs refl ected contextual variations (cf. [START_REF] Wigboldus | Single-target implicit associations[END_REF]. It should be noted, however, that our design may not have provided ideal conditions for a comparison between SC-IAT and standard IAT. As our methodological focus was on the viability of the SC-IAT, we always assessed the SC-IATs before the standard IAT. Although this is the order recommended by [START_REF] Karpinski | The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition[END_REF] for theoretical reasons, it may have affected both the reliability and the context-sensitivity of measures. In future studies using the SC-IAT methodology, a design with counterbalanced order of SC-IAT and standard IAT blocks is thus called for. For the time being, however, we conclude that the SC-IAT appears to be a useful alternative for the assessment of in-group-related attitudes in a non-comparative way.

Notes

1. We use the term 'national identity' rather than 'ethnic identity' because the latter was distinctly defi ned for most of our participants, whereas the former term captures what constitutes their dual identity: they all identifi ed to some extent with both Turkish and German national culture, independent of their ethnic background. 2. Four factors with two levels each were varied to counterbalance several methodological aspects of the design. These included the order in which target groups appeared in all measures (Turkish fi rst vs. German fi rst), the valence of the fi rst assignment of a target group in the SC-IAT (with positive vs. negative items), the left-right assignment of evaluative response keys (positive left vs. negative left), and the order in which explicit versus implicit attitudes were assessed (implicit fi rst vs. explicit fi rst). Because these method factors are not of theoretical interest, and because their inclusion would yield extremely small cell sizes, they were not included in analyses and will not be further discussed. 3. From pretests with Turkish and German participants, we selected those items that were clearly positive or negative, were rated as typical of either Turks or Germans, but not both, and whose ratings did not differ between Turkish and German pretest participants. Of the eight positive items, four were stereotypic of Turks ('family-friendly', 'hospitable', 'sociable', 'warm'), and four were stereotypic of Germans ('dependable', 'determined', 'industrious', 'neat'); similarly, of the eight negative items, four were stereotypic of Turks ('aggressive', 'irritable', 'obstinate', 'provoking'), and four were stereotypic of Germans ('boring', 'cagey', 'cold', 'egoistic').

Biographical notes

gerd bohner is professor of social psychology in the department of psychology at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. His research interests include attitudes, persuasion, social infl uence, gender-related violence, and intergroup relations.

frank siebler is associate professor in the department of psychology at the University of Tromsø, Norway. His research interests include the interplay of implicit and explicit forms of social information processing, as well as computer models of social cognition.

roberto gonzález is associate professor in the department of psychology at Pontifi ca Universidad Católica de Chile. His research interests include intergroup relations, prejudice, intergroup contact, social identity, and attitude change.

andrés haye is associate professor in the department of psychology at Pontifi ca Universidad Católica de Chile. His research interests include attitudes, prejudice, memory, discourse, social interaction, and ideology.

eike a. schmidt is a PhD student at the Heinrich-Heine-University of Düsseldorf, Germany, and is currently working on his thesis in the fi eld of applied neurophysiology and ergonomics.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. SC-IAT scores as a function of identity priming and sex of participant.

Table 1 .

 1 Sequence of blocks in the SC-IAT

	Key assignment of stimuli (example)

Table 2 .

 2 Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies, and intercorrelations of explicit measures of status, attitudes, identifi cation, and stereotyping

	Correlation with

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this manuscript was facilitated by a grant (415 alechile/ale 02/21671) from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Chilean National Board of Scientifi c and Technological Research (CONICyT) to Gerd Bohner and Roberto González. Part of

these data were presented at a meeting of the Transatlantic Research Group on Shared Reality in Communication, Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, on 3 December 2004. We thank Friederike Eyssel and Malte Friese for helpful comments on a previous draft, as well as Fatma Akkaya-Willis, Christian Glass, Heike Gerger, Hanna Kley, Justine Patrzek, Matthias Rohde, Saskia Sabelus, and Lily-Maria Silny for their help in the preparation of materials, data collection, and analysis.