Camilla Matera
email: camilla.matera@unifi.it

Cristina Stefanile

Rupert Brown

The role of immigrant acculturation preferences and generational status in determining majority intergroup attitudes

Keywords: acculturation, generational status, perceived threat acculturation, generational status, perceived threat, multiculturalism, metastereotypes

The role of immigrant acculturation preferences and generational status in determining majority intergroup attitudes

Camilla Matera, Cristina Stefanile, Rupert Brown

Introduction

We now live, it could be said, in a nomadic world. Every year millions of people migrate within or across national boundaries, fleeing famine, war or persecution or seeking material or cultural enrichment. According to 2005 United Nations (UN) figures, over 195 million people now live in a country other than that of their birth and, of these, there were nearly 14 million refugees (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2008; http://esa.un.org/migration/). In Europe alone, it is estimated that there are over 64 million migrants and Italy, the site of the present research, had over 3 million migrants living inside its borders in 2005 (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs; http://esa.un.org/migration/). Such mass migration poses social psychological challenges for immigrants and members of receiving societies alike. Immigrants may need to reconstruct anew their social identities and sometimes have to face a less than warm, not to say downright hostile, welcome from their new country of settlement. Members of the host society will often be confronted with ethnic groups with quite different cultural traditions whom they may perceive to represent a threat to their material well-being, to their traditional way of life, or both. It is not uncommon for those majority members to react to such perceived threats by expressing negative sentiments to immigrants [START_REF] Mclaren | Resources, Group Conflict, and Symbols: Explaining Anti-Immigration Hostility in Britain[END_REF][START_REF] Quillian | Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe[END_REF]Semyonov, Raijman, & Gorodzeisky, 2006). In this paper we investigate two little studied sources of such antiimmigrant sentiment -namely, the acculturation attitudes that the immigrants themselves endorse, together with the assumed generational status of those immigrants. It is our contention that if immigrants are seen as holding acculturation attitudes that do not chime well with what the host majority expects of them, then this will instigate anti-immigrant prejudice. In certain respects, this may be especially visible in reactions to second generation immigrants.

Acculturation attitudes

Social psychological research on acculturation has been dominated by Berry's two dimensional framework [START_REF] Berry | Acculturation as varieties of adaptation[END_REF][START_REF] Berry | Immigration, acculturation and adaptation[END_REF]. As is well known, Berry has proposed that immigrants

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

can have a preference to maintain (or relinquish) their heritage culture (the so-called Culture Maintenance dimension), and can wish to have much (or little) contact with the host society (the Intercultural Contact dimension). The combination of these two dimensions results in four potential acculturation strategies: integration, when immigrants want both to maintain their culture and have contact with the host majority; assimilation, when they are favourable to contact but not to culture maintenance; separation, when immigrants desire to conserve their heritage culture without being in contact with host members; and marginalisation when they refuse both culture maintenance and intercultural contact.

Perhaps not surprisingly, research on acculturation has focussed mainly on the immigrants' perspective, chronicling various psychosocial outcomes that are associated with the different acculturation strategies (for reviews see, [START_REF] Berry | Immigration, acculturation and adaptation[END_REF][START_REF] Berry | Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity and adaptation[END_REF][START_REF] Liebkind | Acculturation[END_REF]. In recent years, however, there has been a growing realisation that members of the host society also will have preferences for which acculturation strategy they would like immigrants to adopt and, moreover, that these preferences, and especially the concordance between them and the immigrants' preferences, could be an important determinant of the nature of the subsequent intergroup relationship between the two groups [START_REF] Bourhis | Towards an Interactive Acculturation Model: A Social Psychological Approach[END_REF][START_REF] Piontkowski | Concordance of acculturation attitudes and perceived threat[END_REF][START_REF] Roccas | Acculturation discrepancies and well-being: The moderating role of conformity[END_REF]van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998;[START_REF] Zagefka | The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit and intergroup relations: immigrant-majority relations in Germany[END_REF]. Moreover, some studies showed that the way in which host members perceive immigrants' preferences can influence intergroup attitudes. For example, [START_REF] Zagefka | The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit and intergroup relations: immigrant-majority relations in Germany[END_REF] found that German majority group preferences for integration were associated with more favourable attitudes, as was the degree of fit between those preferences and the perceived preferences of Turkish immigrants (see also, [START_REF] Pfafferott | Acculturation Preferences of Majority and Minority Adolescents in Germany in the Context of Society and Family[END_REF]. In two subsequent studies, perceived immigrant preferences for intercultural contact were negatively correlated with majority group prejudice towards those immigrants; perceived immigrant preferences for cultural maintenance were not (Zagefka, Brown, Broquard, & Leventoglu In this paper we want to investigate experimentally the role of immigrants' acculturation preferences in affecting the host majority's intergroup attitudes. More specifically, we are interested in analysing the different contribution to the outcome of interest of the two dimensions underlying immigrants' acculturation strategies in Berry's framework. The four acculturation strategies have been typically studied as discrete constructs in this field. It is our aim to provide experimental evidence on the role of the two underlying dimensions, perceived Intercultural Contact and perceived Cultural Maintenance, both as orthogonal predictors of intergroup attitudes in their own right, but also in interaction. Moreover, we are interested in investigating the psychological processes which may affect the relationship between immigrants' acculturation preferences and host members' attitudes towards them, in order to better understand which mechanisms are responsible for unfavourable attitudes held by dominant groups.

Experimental studies in this field have been rare. However, noteworthy is some experimental research showing that perceptions of immigrants' acculturation strategies can affect host majority members' attitudes. Van Oudenhoven et al. (1998) manipulated whether a particular immigrant appeared to endorse one of [START_REF] Berry | Immigration, acculturation and adaptation[END_REF] four strategies and then elicited native Dutch respondents' reactions to this person. They found the most favourable evaluations of the person when s/he appeared to endorse assimilation, closely followed by those in the integration condition.

The immigrant endorsing separation or marginalisation was viewed less favourably. The fact that perceived assimilation and integration elicited the most favourable responses seems to suggest that it was a perception of a desire for contact by the immigrant protagonist that was the primary determinant of her/his subsequent positive evaluation. Similar findings emerged from a study carried out in Italy by [START_REF] Kosic | The role of majority attitudes towards outgroup in the perception of the acculturation strategies of immigrants[END_REF]. The authors manipulated immigrants' acculturation preferences in order to analyse majority members' evaluation and normative reactions to different acculturation strategies perceived to be held by Moroccan immigrants. They found that

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6
Italians had more negative attitudes towards the strategies of separation and marginalisation, while both assimilation and integration were positively evaluated.

This research provides preliminary evidence about the influence of acculturation strategies on attitudes. However, several questions remain: the potentially different determining roles of the two underlying acculturation dimensions are not clear, and the psychological processes mediating the observed effects have yet to be identified. In this paper we address these issues in two experiments.

The results of the studies reported above, in which perceived assimilation and integration were more positively reacted to, together with those previously cited [START_REF] Zagefka | Predictors and consequences of negative attitudes towards immigrants in Belgium and Turkey: The role of acculturation preferences and economic competition[END_REF], suggest that the Contact dimension can be identified as the primary determinant of host members' attitudes towards immigrants. We believe it is likely that immigrants who are seen to desire intergroup contact will be perceived by host society members as less threatening to their common values and traditional way of life, which will result in them being more appreciated. This is because most majority members will regard it as normative and desirable that immigrants should seek contact with host members and with aspects of the host culture. A perception that immigrants actively reject the host culture and its members may be regarded as somewhat 'disrespectful' of the host society, and its values and customs could be felt to be in danger. The result could be a heightened feeling of threat in the minds of the majority group. Host members perceiving that opportunities for future interaction with immigrants do not exist, or think that an initial rejection could be irreversible, may be characterized by an aggressive reaction (Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssenand, 2008) and could consequently show more negative attitudes towards those immigrants.

Moreover, host members might think that immigrants' desire for contact could be regarded by outside observers as a response to -almost an index of -the majority's attitudes towards multiculturalism and immigration. Thus, choices which seem to indicate that the immigrant group is excluded from the larger society could generate negative attributions about the prevailing intergroup climate in the host country. Put differently, the immigrant group's perceived desire for contact

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 7
could influence host members' metastereotypes, the beliefs about the stereotypes that an outgroup holds about the ingroup [START_REF] Vorauer | How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes[END_REF].

We develop these hypotheses further in Study 2, after first establishing that immigrants' perceived desire for contact (or not) is, indeed, the most potent determinant of intergroup attitudes.

Perceived culture maintenance is also likely to have a role in influencing host members' attitudes, even if it is one that is subordinate to the contact dimension. Specifically, it is our contention that culture maintenance might be appreciated by host members, but only when contact is also sought. If immigrants seem to respect the host culture and its members by seeking intercultural contact, then host members may favour culture maintenance on the part of those immigrants. In other words, immigrants who are perceived to favour an integrationist strategy may well be appreciated, perhaps in a form of reciprocal multiculturalism. Such an outcome is more likely to occur in cultural contexts (like Italy, see [START_REF] Matera | Attitudes of Italians toward African immigrants: ingroup favouritism and acculturation process[END_REF][START_REF] Pintus | Atteggiamento acculturativo maggioritario: uno studio con tre target di immigrati a confronto[END_REF] where a multiculturalist ideology is normatively endorsed [START_REF] Bourhis | Towards an Interactive Acculturation Model: A Social Psychological Approach[END_REF][START_REF] Piontkowski | Concordance of acculturation attitudes and perceived threat[END_REF]. A further implication is that, if immigrants are seen as rejecting contact, whether they wish to maintain their culture or not will be a matter of indifference to majority members.

Immigrants' generational status

Typically, in research investigating attitudes towards immigrants, the latter are considered as an undifferentiated category; the only feature used in order to differentiate among immigrants is typically their ethnic or national origin [START_REF] Bourhis | Le modèle d'acculturation interactif: une étude exploratoire[END_REF][START_REF] Bourhis | Acculturation orientations towards Israeli Arabs and Jewish immigrants in Israel[END_REF][START_REF] Montreuil | Host majority acculturation orientations towards 'valued' and 'devalued' immigrants[END_REF]. No research has previously analysed the role of immigrants' generational status in affecting host members' intergroup attitudes, even though such second generation immigrants are more and more visible in many societies [START_REF] Algan | The economic situation of first and second-generation immigrants in France, Germany and the United Kingdom[END_REF]Caritas/Migrantes, 2009) [START_REF] Farver | Acculturation and Psychological Functioning in Asian Indian Adolescents[END_REF]. Given these differences, it is plausible to suppose that first and later generation immigrants will be perceived and responded to differently by the majority. Second and later generation immigrants will usually be fluent in the host community language and will often adopt similar clothing and culinary practices to the majority. As a result, the majority may come to expect less cultural distance between themselves and these immigrants than they will for first generation ones.

In considering the effects of generational status, there are two potentially fruitful lines of argument. The first concerns threats to the distinctiveness of the majority group. Depending on perceived similarity, immigrants could trigger different psychological processes in host members, which in turn may influence their attitude towards them. One might speculate that outgroups who are perceived as more similar to the ingroup might be more appreciated; however, the relationship between similarity and intergroup attitudes is actually quite complex (Brown, 1984a[START_REF] Brown | Prejudice: its social psychology[END_REF][START_REF] Brown | Political contacts: Analyzing the role of similarity in theories of prejudice[END_REF]. Similar out-groups, even if sometimes more liked (Brown, 1984b;[START_REF] Brown | The effects of intergroup similarity and goal interdependence on intergroup attitudes and task performance[END_REF], can also stimulate needs for differentiation, posing threats to distinctiveness [START_REF] Brewer | The Social Self: On being the same and different at the same time[END_REF][START_REF] Jetten | Defining dimensions of distinctiveness: Group variability makes a difference to differentiation[END_REF][START_REF] Jetten | Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: a metaanalytic integration[END_REF]. According to this view, second generation immigrants might pose more of a threat to distinctiveness than first generation immigrants, precisely because in several respects they may have adopted life-styles that more closely resemble that of the host society.

However, other psychological processes could come into play, and this is the second possible line of argumentation. Once again, we can invoke the metastereotyping process: host members might think that second generation immigrants' culture relinquishment could be perceived by outside observers as a response to an assimilationist ideology held by the majority. This choice, which seems to indicate that the immigrant group feels compelled to assimilate, could generate negative metastereotypes about host members' ideas concerning immigration. While contact refusal can be assumed to be associated with negative metaperceptions independently of immigrants'

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 9
generational status, culture relinquishment is predicted to produce negative metastereotypes especially when chosen by second generation immigrants. In other words, we believe that contact will be assumed to be desired by all immigrants who choose to live in another country, but that culture refusal may be viewed rather differently if chosen by first or second generation immigrants.

First generation immigrants spend most their life in their country of origin, so that their choices related to heritage culture maintenance could be dictated by their own main ideologies and rules. On the other hand, second generation immigrants live all (or almost all) their life in the host country, so that the socialization process takes place entirely there for this group; second generation immigrants may be then be believed to make such choices conforming to social norms which are dominant among host members. Someone who was born and grew up in the host country might be expected to know perfectly well which norms are held by most members of that society, and to align themselves to those . The same process is less likely to occur with respect to first generation immigrants, who were socialized in another country, and whose choices regarding culture refusal could be perceived as normative according to their own cultural background, and not to the one dominant in the host society. Thus, second generation immigrants who are seen to be refusing their heritage culture might be perceived to be responding to a dominant assimilationist ideology more than first generation immigrants doing the same thing. This, then, could generate negative metastereotypes, causing host society members to believe that they appear to others as intolerant people.

Generational status may therefore play a different role in combination with the two dimensions underlying acculturation. As immigrants' desire for contact is assumed by host members to be essential, it is plausible to suppose that immigrants favourable to intercultural contact are appreciated regardless of their generational status. Immigrants' perceived desire for culture maintenance might play a different role however. Considering the two different psychological processes described above (distinctiveness threat and negative metastereotypes), we

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 10
can predict that culture maintenance on the part of second generation immigrants will be favourably viewed by the host majority. With regard to the distinctiveness hypothesis, culture maintenance may give rise to intergroup differentiation which could be particularly appreciated by host members, as it could help to reduce distinctiveness threat. With respect to the metastereotypes hypothesis, second generation immigrants seen to be desiring culture maintenance may contribute to making Italians appear opened-mind and tolerant people, especially in other immigrants' eyes.

From both these lines of argument, it can therefore be predicted that second generation immigrants who wish to maintain aspects of their heritage culture would be appreciated more than those who do not. The same arguments apply much less, if at all, to first generation immigrants because their opinions and intended behaviours concerning culture maintenance may be perceived as less related to those of host society members. We will elaborate specific hypotheses about these effects later in the paper (see Study 2). Our first goal is to establish if an interaction between generational status and culture maintenance can, in fact, be observed.

Two studies were conducted in Italy, using only native Italians as participants. The immigrant group was from the African continent since this is one of the most numerous and visible ethnic minorities in Italy. Official data (Caritas/Migrantes, 2009) indicate that European immigrants are still the most numerous in Italy (53.6%,), followed by Africans (22.4%), Asians (15.8%) and Americans (8.1%). The increased percentage of foreigners in European countries is due not only to the growth of migration flows, but also to the increased presence of second generation immigrants, born in the host community from foreigner parents: second generation immigrants are more and more visible in societies such as Italy (Caritas/Migrantes, 2009). With reference to this context, it is also relevant to note that multiculturalism is generally favoured in Italy [START_REF] Pintus | Atteggiamento acculturativo maggioritario: uno studio con tre target di immigrati a confronto[END_REF], especially with respect to usually valued immigrant groups like those from the African continent, the one studied in this research [START_REF] Matera | Attitudes of Italians toward African immigrants: ingroup favouritism and acculturation process[END_REF].

We can now state our hypotheses.

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

11

[H1] Immigrants' desire for Intergroup Contact will improve host members' attitudes towards them.

[H2] Immigrants' desire for Culture Maintenance and Contact will interact in affecting host members' attitudes, with immigrants' perceived desire to maintain their heritage culture having an effect only when they are also perceived to seek intergroup contact.

[H3] Immigrants' perceived Generational Status will interact with their perceived desire for Culture Maintenance in affecting host majority's attitudes towards them.

These hypotheses were tested experimentally using both an evaluative and an affective measure of intergroup attitude (Bagozzi, Gürhan-Canli, & Priester, 2002).

Study 1

Method

Participants

An opportunity community sample of 220 Italian citizens was recruited to participate in the study. First and second generation immigrants were not included in the sample. More than half participants were female (F=60.9%, M=38.6%), and their mean age was 41.38 years (SD=10.90).

Almost all respondents were born in Tuscany and lived in this region. Their educational level was quite high (University graduate=30.8%, high school degree=52.4%, junior high school degree=16.8%; 89.4% employees and 10.6% unemployed people). Participants were invited to take part in a study about immigration. Participation was voluntary. Participants were assigned randomly to the different experimental conditions.

Design

The study used a 2 X 2 X 2 between-participants design in which acculturation preferences and generational status of an immigrant group member were manipulated: immigrants' desire for Culture Maintenance (high vs. low) X desire for intergroup Contact (high vs. low) X perceived generational Status (1 st vs. 2 nd ). Ps were first presented with a questionnaire at the beginning of which a fictitious (but apparently real) interview with an African immigrant to Italy was presented. Respondents were asked to read it with attention. In this interview his presumed generational status was varied, as were his ideas about heritage culture maintenance (favourable versus unfavourable) and intergroup contact (favourable versus unfavourable). After reading this brief interview, participants were asked to express their opinions towards other immigrants like the interviewee (see appendix A).

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C
The study thus had the following independent variables.

Immigrants' desire for intergroup Contact. The immigrant interviewed expressed his opinions about intergroup contact, asserting he believed it was/was not important to establish and keep in contact with Italians.

Immigrants' desire for heritage Culture Maintenance. The immigrant interviewed expressed As the two measures were substantially correlated (r=.71), an overall index of intergroup attitudes was created by averaging the scores on the separate scales.

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C

Results

Univariate Analysis of variance with intergroup attitude as the dependent variable was performed. Mean scores are displayed in table 1.

There were main effects of both Contact, F(1,212) = 99.27, p<.001, η² = .32, and

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T
Maintenance, F(1,212) = 9.05, p<.01, η² = .04. However, the latter was qualified by an interaction between Contact and Maintenance, F(1,212) = 15.99, p<.001, η² = .07 (see Figure 1). Simple effects analyses revealed, as predicted, that immigrants who did not consider it valuable to have contact with Italians were the object of less positive attitudes, whatever their desire for heritage culture maintenance (M = 3.12) or refusal (M = 3.26), F(1,212) = .48, ns. On the other hand, if they considered it important to have intergroup contact, they were reacted to more positively if they also saw it valuable to maintain their ethnic culture (M = 5.15) than if they did not (M = 4.

Discussion

In accordance with Hypothesis 1, immigrants' desire for intergroup contact was found to have the most powerful effect on host majority's attitudes towards them, explaining some eight times more variance than any other effect in the analysis. Supporting Hypothesis 2, perceived

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

15 cultural maintenance only elicited favourable intergroup attitudes if it was simultaneously accompanied by a desire for intergroup contact. Hypothesis 3, relating to immigrants' generational status and their desire for culture maintenance, was also confirmed: when the target immigrant belonged to the second generation, host members' attitudes were more positive if he also saw it valuable to maintain his ethnic culture rather than if he did not.

We can conclude, then, that host members' attitudes were affected by what they perceived the immigrant's acculturation strategy to be, especially in regard to his desire for intergroup contact.

Nevertheless, when he appeared to be endorsing a wish to integrate (high on both dimensions), he stimulated the most favourable intergroup attitudes of all. In addition, as we had suspected, only the cultural maintenance preferences of the second generation protagonist were influential, eliciting more favourable attitudes when he endorsed cultural maintenance than when he did not. The same effect was not visible in the first generation conditions.

Study 2

In Study 1 we have obtained three key findings: first, an immigrant who is seen to want contact with the majority elicits much more favourable intergroup attitudes than when he is seen not to desire such contact. Second, if he also is seen to wish to maintain his cultural heritage, this elicits favourable attitudes only when this is combined with a perceived desire for contact. Third, that same perceived desire for cultural maintenance evokes favourable attitudes mainly in the second generation immigrant condition. In Study 2 we aimed to uncover the underlying psychological mechanisms that might help to explain these effects.

First, we focused on the role of both perceived threat and metaperceptions in mediating the observed significant relationship between immigrants' desire for contact and host members' attitudes towards them.

With regard to perceived threat, some research has already shown that immigrants' acculturation strategies, besides affecting host members' attitudes, can also stimulate feelings of

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

16 threat in majority group members [START_REF] Piontkowski | Concordance of acculturation attitudes and perceived threat[END_REF][START_REF] Rohmann | Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants[END_REF]Rohmann et al., 2008;Tip et al., in press). However, the relative importance of the two acculturation dimensions has not been clearly demonstrated in these studies. Moreover, the potential role of perceived threat in mediating the relationship between immigrants' acculturation preferences and host majority's attitudes remains to be established. Following Stephan and Stephan (2000), we distinguish between realistic and symbolic threats, focusing our attention particularly on the latter. While realistic threats refer to threats to the material interests or even the very existence of the ingroup, symbolic threats involve perceived group differences in values, standards and lifestyles which seem to jeopardize the worldview of the ingroup. , 1998). Some previous research showed that contact discordance was related to symbolic threat, but not to realistic threat [START_REF] Rohmann | Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants[END_REF]. In line with these findings, we suggest that immigrants' perceived (lack of) desire for Contact will be regarded as particularly threatening to the worldview of the ingroup because it carries with it the possible implication that immigrants are 'rejecting' the majority's culture and all that it stands for. If perceived (lack of) Contact is associated with threat, which in turn is associated with anti-immigrant attitudes, it is plausible to predict that symbolic threat mediates, at least partially, the significant relationship between immigrants' perceived desire for intergroup contact and host members' attitudes towards them.

Drawing on recent work on metaperceptions (e.g., [START_REF] Frey | Being seen as individuals versus as group members: extending research on metaperception to intergroup contexts[END_REF][START_REF] Méndez | When metaperceptions are affected by intergroup processes[END_REF][START_REF] Vorauer | Dominant Group Members in Intergroup Interaction: Safety or Vulnerability in Numbers?[END_REF], we considered the possible mediational role of metastereotypes in explaining the observed relation between perceived contact and attitudes towards immigrants. Host society members might believe that immigrants who are seen to be uninterested in intergroup contact could make them (the host society) appear to other people as intolerant. Outside observers

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

might conclude that the refusal of contact on the part of immigrants is a consequence of a discriminatory orientation endorsed by the host population. Negative metastereotypes would then arise, as host members would perceive they are seen as closed-mind and intolerant by others. This would impact negatively on host members' attitudes towards those immigrants, who might be seen as being responsible for those negative attitudes held by external people (i.e., other immigrants) towards Italians. Following this line of argument, we hypothesized that both perceived symbolic threat and metastereotypes could be partially responsible for the observed relation between immigrants' desire for contact and host members' attitudes.

The second objective of Study 2 concerned the generational Status X Culture Maintenance interaction. There are two different possible explanations of this. As already noted, it might be that second generation immigrants may be perceived by host members to be somewhat similar to their own ingroup. As noted earlier, such perceived similarity could lead to more positive perceptions, but it could also stimulate differentiation needs (Brown, 1984a;[START_REF] Jetten | Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: a metaanalytic integration[END_REF]Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In other words, second generation immigrants could represent a threat to the distinctiveness of the ingroup. Immigrants' desire for maintaining their heritage culture, according to this argument, may constitute a reassuring element for the Italian majority group, since their distinctive Italian culture is not threatened. The same process may not apply to first generation immigrants since they are more obviously definable as a distinctive outgroup from the outset.

But metaperceptions could also be implicated in the Status X Maintenance interaction. Just as immigrants' lack of desire for contact might affect metastereotypes, so too might the combined effect of immigrants' generational status and desire for culture maintenance influence host members' metastereotypes, which in turn could affect attitudes towards immigrants. As speculated in relation to intergroup contact, host members may believe that immigrants refusing their heritage culture could make them appear as closed-mind and insensitive. However, in contrast to our hypothesis for contact, which seemed to be considered as indispensable with regard to all

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 18
immigrants, this metaperception might be generated especially by second generation immigrants, for whom culture maintenance appears to be particularly appreciated (see Study 1).

Third, we set out to understand the psychological processes that might underlie the interaction between Culture Maintenance and Contact. We suggest that this interaction occurs because immigrants seen to be favouring both culture maintenance and intergroup contact will be perceived to be facilitating multiculturalism, a policy which is generally favoured in Italy, as we noted earlier [START_REF] Matera | Attitudes of Italians toward African immigrants: ingroup favouritism and acculturation process[END_REF][START_REF] Pintus | Atteggiamento acculturativo maggioritario: uno studio con tre target di immigrati a confronto[END_REF]. Immigrants favouring integration (high on both dimensions) will be viewed favourably by Italians since such a preference contributes to the cultural enrichment of their country, providing a vitality to it [START_REF] Deaux | To Be an Immigrant: Psychological Design and Social Fabric[END_REF]. Here, then, we predict that the evocation of favourable intergroup attitudes by an immigrant's desire for both contact and cultural maintenance is mediated by an implied endorsement of multiculturalism.

In summary, then, we propose the following three new mediational hypotheses:

[H4] The relationship between perceived (lack of) desire for Contact and intergroup attitudes is mediated by feelings of symbolic threat and by metastereotypes.

[H5] The Status X Maintenance interaction effect on intergroup attitudes is mediated by perceived threats to the distinctiveness of the ingroup and by metastereotypes.

[H6] Endorsement of multiculturalism ideals mediates the interactive effect of Contact and Maintenance on intergroup attitudes.

In examining the effects of these mediator variables (perceived threats, metastereotypes and support for multiculturalism) we thought it prudent to control for participants' initial levels of prejudice. [START_REF] Vorauer | Dominant Group Members in Intergroup Interaction: Safety or Vulnerability in Numbers?[END_REF] noted how metasteretyping is affected by individuals' dispositional prejudice. In Stephan and Stephan's (2000) Integrated Threat Theory there is assumed to be a direct link between symbolic threats and prejudice. It is likely, too, that any distinctiveness threats felt by ingroup members will be exacerbated by prior prejudice since those of higher prejudice will be more concerned about ingroup distinctiveness [START_REF] Blascovich | Racism and racial categorization[END_REF]. Finally, support for multiculturalism is also usually associated with prejudice [START_REF] Berry | Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the 1991 national survey[END_REF], 2000).

For all these reasons, we first controlled for participants' prejudice in testing our mediational hypotheses.

In order to account for multiple mediators and avoid over-or under-estimation of the influence of the supposed predictors, all the variables considered were included in a model simultaneously (see [START_REF] Preacher | Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models[END_REF].

Method

Design

The study used the same 2 X 2 X 2 between Ps design as in Study 1: Perceived desire for intergroup Contact (high vs. low) X perceived desire for Culture Maintenance (high vs. low) X generational Status (1 st vs. 2 nd ).

Participants

Participants were 135 university students. All of them were Italians, as were their parents.

Most of them were female (F=78.5%, M=21.5%) and their mean age was 24.58 years (SD=2.38).

Most of the participants were born in Tuscany and lived in this region. Participation was voluntary.

Participants were assigned randomly to the different experimental conditions. First and second generation immigrants were not included in the sample.

Measures and procedure

A modified version of the questionnaire used in Study 1 was employed. The same interview used in Study 1 was presented, so that the same variables could be manipulated (perceived desire for intergroup Contact, perceived desire for Culture Maintenance, generational Status).

Furthermore, in order to test our mediational hypotheses we had to assess also participants' levels of prejudice.

Prejudice. Respondents' prejudice was measured computing the difference between the evaluation expressed towards Italians and African immigrants on an attitude thermometer, which

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 20 corresponds to participants' ingroup bias (0=completely unfavourable; 100=completely favourable).

This measure was presented before the vignette through which the other independent variables were manipulated.

After the vignette, the following dependent measures were presented.

Intergroup evaluations (alpha = .93) and emotions (alpha = .91) were assessed as in Study 1 and an overall index was created after observing once again that the two measures were substantially correlated (r = .73).

Perceived symbolic threats. Perception of symbolic threat was measured with 3 items (e.g., "Values of people like the one described in the vignette are too different from the ones of Italians";

"People like the one described in the vignette do not understand Italians' world vision") (1=not at all; 7=very much; α=.77).

Metastereotypes. Participants were told that the same interview they were presented with had been previously presented also to an African immigrant called Malik, who had been in Italy for a short time. They were told that Malik was asked to describe Italian people on the basis of the interview he had read. Participants were then asked to think how Malik could have described Italian Distinctiveness threat. Threat to the distinctiveness of the ingroup was measured through two items on 7-point rating scales (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree): "Habits of people like

Hassan are too similar to Italians'" and "I don't think that people like Hassan can be confused with

Italians" (reverse-scored) (r=-.31, p<.001).

Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism was measured through 4 items on 7-point rating scales (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree): "The presence of people like Hassan in Italy improves our

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T
country making it rich with different cultures"; "Cultural diversity is guaranteed by people like

Hassan"; "Thanks to people like Hassan we can live in a multicultural society"; "People like Hassan facilitate multiculturalism in Italy" (alpha=.91).

Results

Univariate Analysis of variance with intergroup attitudes as the dependent variable was performed. Mean scores are displayed in table 2.

Mediational hypotheses

The effect of Contact on intergroup attitudes was supposed to be mediated by Symbolic Threat and Metastereotypes (Hypothesis 4). We predicted that the Status X Maintenance interaction had an impact on Metastereotypes and Distinctiveness Threat, which in turn might affect attitudes (Hypothesis 5). The Contact X Maintenance term was supposed to influence intergroup attitudes via multiculturalism (Hypothesis 6). Prejudice was predicted to affect symbolic threat, metastereotypes and multiculturalism.

In order to test our mediational hypotheses, first some ANCOVAs with prejudice as the covariate were conducted. In each of these, the dependent measure was the hypothesised mediator.

With regard to symbolic threat, the ANCOVA revealed a main effect of host intergroup Contact F(1,126) = 12.82, p<.001, η² = .09. Symbolic threat was higher when immigrants did not want to have contact with Italians (M = 3.49) rather than when they positively valued intergroup contact (M = 2.76). There was no effect due to Culture Maintenance. A significant covariate effect of prejudice was also found, F(1,126) = 25.47 p<.001, η² = .17.

With respect to the metastereotyping hypotheses, the ANCOVA revealed main effects of With regard to distinctiveness threat, the ANCOVA revealed a main effect of both generational status, F(1,126) = 6.08 p<.05 η² = .05, and Culture Maintenance F(1,126) = 7.94 p<.01 η² = .06. Distinctiveness threat was higher for second (M = 3.57) than first generation immigrants (M = 3.10) and was higher when immigrants were seen as abandoning their heritage culture (M = 3.60) than conserving it (M = 3.07). Also a significant Contact X Maintenance interaction emerged, F(1,126) = 5.77 p<.05 η² = .04. Simple effect analyses showed that immigrants who wanted to maintain their heritage culture were perceived as more threatening to the distinctiveness of the ingroup when they also appreciated intergroup contact (M = 3.43) than when they did not desire it (M = 2.71), F(1,126) = 7.88, p < .01; moreover, higher threat was perceived when immigrants who did not appreciate contact appeared to desire culture refusal (M = 3.69) rather than culture maintenance (M = 2.71), F(1,126) = 13.65, p < .001. A significant covariate effect of prejudice was also found, F(1,126) = 12.52 p<.01 η² = .09. However, contrary to the mediational hypothesis, there was no Maintenance X Status interaction on this distinctiveness variable, F(1,126) = .003, ns. Thus, it is unlikely that distinctiveness concerns underlie that interaction.

With regard to the multiculturalism hypothesis, a significant Maintenance X Contact interaction was found, in line with our hypothesis, F(1,126) = 6.90 p<.05 η² = .05; simple effect analyses showed that immigrants appreciating contact were perceived as favouring multiculturalism more when they wanted to conserve their heritage culture (M = 5.21) than when they desired to relinquish it (M = 4.08), F(1,126) = 13.15, p < .001. When contact was not appreciated, no difference was found between immigrants desiring culture maintenance (M = 4.68) or relinquishment (M = 4.71), F(1,126) = .01, ns. The prejudice covariate effect was significant here too, F(1,126) = 8.32 p<.01, η² = .06.

Taken all together, these findings provide the first evidence for our mediational hypotheses.

We then tested our hypotheses concerning the effects of perceived threats, metastereotypes

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T
and multiculturalism through path analysis, employing the AMOS software, Version 7. Parameter estimates were derived using the maximum likelihood procedure. Intercorrelations between all variables are shown in Table 3. All variables included in the path analysis were observed variables.

A model was tested in which Contact, generational Status, Culture Maintenance, the two Contact X

Maintenance and Status X Maintenance interaction terms and Prejudice were all entered as predictors of Symbolic Threat, Metastereotypes, Multiculturalism and attitudes. Then, Symbolic Threat, Metastereotypes, Multiculturalism variables were posited as predictors of attitudes.

Distinctiveness threat was not included in the model as no significant effect of the Status X Maintenance interaction on this variable was found though previous analyses.

Figure 3 shows the standardized regression coefficients of the final model. This represented a very good fit to the data according to conventional criteria (chi-square=24.63, p=.26; chisquare/df=1.17; RMSEA=.04; SRMR=.05; CFI=.99; TLI=.98).

In line with the results from the ANCOVAs, prejudice showed a direct significant path to the three mediators included in the model. As predicted by Hypothesis 4, both Symbolic threat and metastereotypes partially mediated the relationship between immigrants' desire for contact and host members' attitudes towards them. Supporting Hypothesis 5, metastereotypes were found to mediate the relationship between Status X Maintenance and attitudes towards immigrants. In line with Hypothesis 6, the relationship between the Contact X Maintenance interaction and attitudes appeared to be completely mediated by multiculturalism. A direct path between generational status and multiculturalism was also found.

The model accounted for 49% of the variance in attitudes towards immigrants.

Discussion

We can note, first of all, that the three key findings of Study 1 were replicated: the strong Contact main effect, the Status X Maintenance interaction and the Contact X Maintenance interaction. Importantly, we were now able to furnish evidence for what might mediate each of

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

these effects: the Contact main effect was partially mediated by symbolic threat and metastereotypes, as predicted by Hypothesis 4; the Contact X Maintenance interaction was fully mediated by endorsement of multiculturalism, as predicted by Hypothesis 6; and, finally, for the Status X Maintenance interaction, perhaps one of the most novel and initially counterintuitive findings of this programme of work, we are now able to offer an explanation. As predicted by Hypothesis 5, metastereotypes mediated the relationship between the Generational Status X Culture Maintenance effect and intergroup attitudes. Host members seem to like second generation immigrants less when they appear to abandon their heritage culture because they think that doing so they may make host members appear intolerant at others' eyes, which could both threaten their selfconcept and give them grounds for concern about the likely development of non-harmonious intercultural relations. Notably, and contrary to Hypothesis 5, there was little support for distinctiveness threat playing a part in explaining this same interaction. The role of prejudice in affecting perceptions of threat, metastereotypes, and support for multiculturalism was confirmed.

General discussion

Two independent studies generated support for the powerful role of immigrants' perceived acculturation attitudes and generational status in affecting host society attitudes towards them.

Although other research has begun to document the importance of the outgroup's perceived acculturation preferences [START_REF] Kosic | The role of majority attitudes towards outgroup in the perception of the acculturation strategies of immigrants[END_REF]van Oudenhoven et al., 1998;[START_REF] Zagefka | Predictors and consequences of negative attitudes towards immigrants in Belgium and Turkey: The role of acculturation preferences and economic competition[END_REF], we believe that this research breaks new ground in showing for the first time that these perceptions directly impact on generalised intergroup attitudes, and in providing insight into why such effects occur. Moreover, the discovery that the presumed generational status of the immigrant group can play a key role in moderating those attitudes also opens up new avenues for future research.

Our consistent findings from these two studies underlined the importance of taking into account the two dimensions of acculturation separately, confirming that they play quite different roles in influencing intergroup perceptions. Such different roles could be observed thanks to their

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

independent and dimensional operationalizations, in line with recent recommendations (Brown & Zagefka, in press;[START_REF] Ward | Acculturation and adaptation revisited[END_REF]Rudmin, 2003;[START_REF] Zagefka | The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit and intergroup relations: immigrant-majority relations in Germany[END_REF]. Moreover, the fact that both studies used a randomised experimental design, a comparative rarity in the acculturation literature (for exceptions, see [START_REF] Kosic | The role of majority attitudes towards outgroup in the perception of the acculturation strategies of immigrants[END_REF]Rohmann et al., 2008, van Oudenhoven et al., 1998), gives us considerable confidence, not just in the empirical robustness of the results, but also in the direction of the relevant causal processes at work.

In spite of the consistent and mostly conclusive results obtained, some issues remain to be better understood through further investigations. In our research, acculturation strategies were considered as general orientations without referring to specific life domains. But recent studies showed that acculturation preferences may vary depending on the domain considered (Arends-Tóth & van [START_REF] Arends-Toth | Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and Turkish-Dutch[END_REF]. Future work could then attempt to analyse potential effects caused by perceived acculturation attitudes of minority groups expressing various preferences in both private and public domains. This could be particularly interesting for an in-depth examination of the role of culture maintenance with regard to immigrants' generational status. Future research could investigate with respect to which domains culture maintenance is particularly appreciated for second generation immigrants. Moreover, the effects of culture maintenance, in interaction with both immigrants' generational status and desire for intergroup contact, should be analysed with reference to different immigrant groups and also in different cultural contexts, where multiculturalism is less generally endorsed by host members. The impact of the majority's preferences, as perceived by minority, could be analysed too (cf., Zagefka, Tip, González, Brown, & Cinnirella, under review).

These findings also have applied implications as they suggest that perceived support for intergroup contact among immigrants can lead to more positive attitudes among majority members, through the reduction of perceived threat and negative metastereotypes. We can therefore suggest that interventions aimed at reducing prejudice should encourage intergroup contact among

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

immigrants, as this can produce beneficial effects for the social cohesion of society as a whole.

Moreover, facilitating contacts between immigrants and host members could lead the majority group to appreciate even culture maintenance on the part of those immigrants, which could improve their intercultural adjustment in both psychological and sociocultural terms.

  13), F(1,212) = 25.26, p<.001. Note that the simple effects of Contact were both highly significant, irrespective of Maintenance (Maintenance high , F(1,212) = 94.93, p<.001; Maintenance low , F(1,212) = 18.28, p <.001).The ANOVA also revealed a significant Status X Maintenance interaction, F(1,212) = 7.73, p<.05, η² = .03. Simple effects analyses revealed that Maintenance had a significant effect only with regard to second generation immigrants; for immigrants who were seen as belonging to the first generation, host members' attitudes did not vary according to immigrants' desire for heritage culture maintenance (M = 4.04) or rejection (M = 4.01), F(1,212) = .03, ns. However, if they belonged to the second generation, they were responded to more positively if they saw it valuable to maintain their ethnic culture (M = 4.25) rather than if they did not (M = 3.40), F(1,212) = 16.64 p<.001. Note that the simple effects of Status were significant only when culture maintenance was not appreciated by immigrants (Generation first = 4.01, Generation second = 3.40, F(1,212) = 9.35, p<.01), and not when it was desired (Generation first = 4.04, Generation second = 4.23, F(1,212) = .82, ns) (see Figure2).

  people on the basis of Hassan's declaration. Four semantic differentials (intolerant-tolerant, arrogant-kind, closed-open mind, insensitive-sensitive), measured on 7-point scales what Malik thought of Italians (α=.88). The purpose of this measure was to gauge the attributions other people might make for the target person's (Hassan) responses.

  Main effects of both desire for intergroup Contact , F(1,127) = 43.80, p<.001, η² = .26, and generational Status, F(1,127) = 4.52, p<.05, η² = .03, emerged. Replicating Study 1, the ANOVA also revealed a significant Contact X Maintenance interaction effect, F(1,127) = 5.86, p<.05, η² = .04. Simple effects analyses revealed that culture maintenance had a significant effect only when contact was highly desired. When the immigrant target did not consider it valuable to have contact with Italians (low contact), this elicited less positive attitudes, independently of perceived desire for culture maintenance (M = 3.80) or refusal (M = 4.03), F(1,127) = 1.26, ns; but if the target considered it important to have intergroup contact (high contact), this aroused more positive intergroup attitudes if he was seen to regard it as valuable to maintain his ethnic culture (M = 5.13) rather than if he did not (M = 4.65), F(1,127) = 5.29, p<.05. Note that the simple effects of Contact were both significant, irrespective of Maintenance (Maintenance high , F(1,127) = 43.11, p<.001; Maintenance low , F(1,127) = 8.37, p <.01). This interaction closely replicates what we found in Study 1 and supports Hypothesis 2 yet again. Once more, a significant Maintenance X Status interaction was observed, F(1,127) = 5.22, p<.05, η² = .04. Immigrants refusing their heritage culture were seen more unfavourably when they belonged to the second (M = 4.01) rather than the first generation (M = 4.66), F(1,127) = 9.24, p<.01. No difference was found in the high culture maintenance condition with regard to first (M = 4.45) and second generation immigrants (M = 4.47), F(1,127) = .01, ns. No significant differences emerged with respect to culture maintenance or refusal on the part of first generation immigrants A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 22 (first generation, Ms = 4.45, 4.66, F(1,127) = 1.05, ns); instead, a significant difference was found in the second generation condition (Ms = 4.47 vs. 4.01, F(1,127) = 4.89, p<.05). Thus, as predicted by Hypothesis 3, culture refusal elicited less favourable attitudes when endorsed by second rather than first generation immigrants.

  Intergroup Contact, F(1,126) = 21.00, p<.001 η² = .14, and Prejudice, F(1,126) = 19.11, p<.001 η² = .13. Furthermore, as expected, a significant Maintenance X Status interaction also emerged, F(1,126) = 4.18, p<.05 η² = .05. Simple effects analyses revealed that metastereotypes were more positive when second generation immigrants desired to maintain (M = 4.11) rather than abandon (M = 3.30) their heritage culture, F(1,126) = 7.93, p<.01. No difference between first generation immigrants maintaining (M = 3.82) or abandoning (M = 3.84) their heritage culture emerged,

A

  Figure 1.

  Immigrants' generational Status. Generational status was manipulated by describing the immigrant's origins; he introduced himself as born in Africa (first generation) or in Italy (second generation); in both cases he specified that his parents were from Africa. In the second generation condition he said he had always lived and worked in Italy; in the first generation condition he said he had been living and working in Italy for ten years.

	ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
	his opinions about heritage culture maintenance, stating he thought that it was/was not important to
	maintain his African culture.
	R I P T
	13

The dependent measures were:

Intergroup evaluations. Participants' evaluations of African immigrants were assessed with nine semantic differentials (i.e. nice-awful, pleasant-unpleasant, enjoyable-unenjoyable, usefuluseless, positive-negative, beneficial-harmful, desirable-undesirable, wise-foolish, appreciableunappreciable), measuring on 7-point scales what participants thought that people such as the central figure in the interview were like (α=.95). The resulting scale was scored in a positive direction.

Intergroup emotions.

Participants were asked to express their feelings towards people like the central figure in the scenario; they were presented with a list of 8 positive emotionally-laden terms (i.e., sympathy, happiness, admiration, curiosity, attractiveness, friendliness, solidarity and thrust) already used by

Kosic et al. (2005) (α=.95)

. Emotions were measured on a 7-point scale (1=not at all, 7=very much).

Table 1 .

 1 Means (SDs) of intergroup attitudes by immigrants' perceived generational status, desire for culture maintenance and intergroup contact (study 1)

	Generational status	Heritage culture	Intergroup contact	Attitudes
		Maintenance
	First generation	Unfavourable	Unfavourable	3.57 (1.02)
			Favourable	4.44 (1.14)
		Favourable	Unfavourable	3.03 (1.05)
			Favourable	5.04 (1.03)
	Second generation	Unfavourable	Unfavourable	2.95 (1.36)
			Favourable	3.82 (1.10)
		Favourable	Unfavourable	3.20 (.97)
			Favourable	5.25 (.90)

Table 2 .

 2 Means (SDs) of intergroup attitudes, symbolic threat, metastereotypes, distinctiveness threat and guarantee for multiculturalism by immigrants' perceived generational status, desire for culture maintenance and intergroup contact (study 2)

	Generational	Heritage	Intergroup	Attitudes	Symbolic	Metastereotypes	Distinctiveness	Guarantee for
	status	culture	contact		threat		threat	Multiculturalism
		Maintenance
	First generation	Unfavourable	Unfavourable	4.50 (.84)	3.20 (.87)	3.72 (1.27)	3.67 (1.29)	4.98 (1.48)
			Favourable	4.82 (.86)	2.88 (.85)	3.89 (1.02)	3.14 (.94)	4.39 (1.39)
		Favourable	Unfavourable	3.85 (.88)	3.75 (1.38)	3.26 (1.53)	2.53 (1.01)	5.12 (0.98)
			Favourable	5.05 (.77)	2.94 (.80)	4.32 (1.39)	3.18 (1.16)	5.25 (0.89)
	Second generation	Unfavourable	Unfavourable	3.56 (.80)	3.67 (1.00)	2.53 (.98)	3.66 (1.12)	4.39 (1.72)
			Favourable	4.47 (.72)	3.19 (1.34)	4.23 (1.64)	3.87 (1.25)	3.75 (1.48)
		Favourable	Unfavourable	3.74 (.92)	3.65 (1.14)	3.66 (1.06)	2.95 (1.11)	4.31 (1.27)
			Favourable	5.20 (.97)	3.07 (1.44)	4.59 (1.18)	3.65 (1.20)	5.13 (1.18)

*p≤.05 **p≤.01 ***p≤.001

Interviewer: Do you think that it is valuable to have contacts with Italian people? Interviewee: Yes, I think it is very important to establish and maintain relationships with Italians.

A C C E P T E D


Kevin D Cassidy

Kimberly A Quinn

Glyn W Humphreys

The Influence of Ingroup/Outgroup Categorization on Same-and Other-Race Face Processing: The Moderating Role of Inter-versus Intra-Racial Context

Keywords: other-race effect, ingroup/outgroup categorization, racial context, face processing, configural processing, inversion effects

We investigated the impact of ingroup/outgroup categorization on the encoding of same-race and other-race faces presented in inter-racial and intra-racial contexts (Experiments 1 and 2, respectively). White participants performed a same/different matching task on pairs of upright and inverted faces that were either same-race (White) or other-race (Black), and labeled as being from the same university or a different university. In Experiment 1 the same-and other-race faces were intermixed. For other-race faces, participants demonstrated greater configural processing following same-than other-university labeling. Same-race faces showed strong configural coding irrespective of the university labeling.. In Experiment 2, faces were blocked by race. Participants demonstrated greater configural processing of same-than other-university faces, but now for both same-and other-race faces. These results demonstrate that other-race face processing is sensitive to non-racial ingroup/outgroup status regardless of racial context, but that the sensitivity of same-race face processing to the same cues depends on the racial context in which targets are encountered.

An uncomfortable perception during interactions with members of other ethnic groups is that their faces "all look the same." The reduced individuation of other-race relative to same-race faces can have life-changing implications, as in cases of eyewitness misidentification [START_REF] Brigham | The influence of race on eyewitness memory[END_REF]. The importance of this own-race advantage in individuation has motivated a profusion of attempts to identify its causes, with as yet no definitive answers. In the current research, we investigated how ingroup/outgroup categorization influences the perception of same-and other-race faces presented in an inter-racial or intra-racial context.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the "other-race effect" [START_REF] Meissner | Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review[END_REF][START_REF] Meissner | Memory for own-and other-race faces: A dual-process approach[END_REF]. Perceptual expertise accounts, for example, suggest that perceivers are more familiar with same-race than other-race faces and consequently process same-race faces more accurately and efficiently than other-race faces (e.g., [START_REF] Brigham | The role of experience and contact in the recognition of faces of own-and other-race persons[END_REF][START_REF] Goldstein | Effects of training on Japanese face recognition: Reduction of the other-race effect[END_REF]. In contrast, social categorization accounts suggest the other-race effect occurs because the categorization of other-race faces as outgroup members undermines the motivation to process other-race faces in terms of individual identity (e.g., [START_REF] Hugenberg | Social categorization and stereotyping: How social categorization biases person and perception in face memory[END_REF] or because of the coding of race-specifying information (e.g., skin tone) at the expense of individuating information [START_REF] Levin | Classifying faces by race: The structure of face categories[END_REF][START_REF] Levin | Race as a visual feature: Using visual search and perceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categories and the cross-race recognition deficit[END_REF].

These accounts differ in the proposed locus of the other-race effect, but say little about possible interactions between expertise and social categorization, or the specific aspects of face processing that may be affected by these factors. There is evidence that same-race faces tend to

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS be processed more configurally (i.e., in terms of the spatial relationships between facial features) than other-race faces (Michel, Caldara, & Rossion, 2006;[START_REF] Michel | Race categorization modulates holistic face encoding[END_REF], 2009;[START_REF] Michel | Holistic processing is finely tuned for faces of one's own race[END_REF]Tanaka, Kiefer, & Buckach, 2004).

Specifically, inverting faces is known to be more detrimental to configural than to feature-based processing [START_REF] Diamond | Why faces are not so special: An effect of expertise[END_REF]Thompson, 1980;Yin, 1969) and to produce greater recognition costs for same-race than other-race faces (e.g., [START_REF] Hancock | Contact, configural encoding and the other-race effect in face recognition[END_REF][START_REF] Rhodes | Expertise and configural encoding in face recognition[END_REF][START_REF] Sangrigoli | Effect of visual experience on face processing: A developmental study of inversion and non-native effects[END_REF]. This suggests that there may be different "default" processing strategies: configural for same-race faces and featural for otherrace faces. Nonetheless these processing strategies may be modulated by differential expertise or categorization-related motivation.

Recent evidence has revealed that motivational processes related to social categorization can indeed influence face processing. Michel, Corneille, andRossion (2007, 2009) for example, asked Caucasian participants to make same/different judgments to sequentially presented pairs of Caucasian, Asian, and racially ambiguous (i.e., Caucasian-Asian morphed) faces. The target faces were aligned or misaligned composites in which the top parts either depicted the same individual or two different individuals. When racially ambiguous faces were categorized as same-race rather than other-race (according to cues provided by the experimenter), participants processed the faces more configurally, evidenced by responses to a half-face target being more disrupted when the faces were aligned relative to when they were misaligned (the so-called "face-composite effect"; Young, Hellawell, & Hay, 1987). These results suggest that manipulations related to social categorization can modulate how faces are processed, with stronger configural processing emerging when faces are categorized as racial ingroup members -at least when the targets are racially ambiguous.

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS There is also evidence that social categorization can affect the structural encoding of same-race faces. [START_REF] Hugenberg | Holistic processing is tuned for in-group faces[END_REF], again using the face-composite manipulation, asked White participants to make same/different judgments to sequentially presented pairs of same-race faces categorized as ingroup or outgroup members on the basis of university affiliation. Participants showed greater configural processing when faces were categorized as ingroup members than when they were categorized as outgroup members. These results suggest that outgroup categorization is sufficient to debilitate the strong "default" configural processing normally observed for same-race faces.

The above evidence indicates that categorization of same-race faces as outgroup members decreases the likelihood of processing these faces in a default configural manner. To date, however, the direct effects of non-racial ingroup/outgroup categorization on face encoding have only been demonstrated when the faces are presented in isolation. In this circumstance, racial ingroup/outgroup membership provides the primary dimension for categorization. In other circumstances, however, racial ingroup/outgroup membership may represent only one among multiple possible dimensions for categorization, and may not be perceived as the primary or most useful dimension. When other dimensions are used,, changes in configural processing as a function of racial ingroup/outgroup status might not be anticipated. In addition, the effects of non-racial ingroup/outgroup categorization have only been examined with same-race faces.

Given that most perceivers have greater experience with same-race than other-race faces, it is possible that their facility with configural processing will be greater for same-race than otherrace faces. As a consequence, their processing of same-race faces, relative to the processing of other-race faces, might be less amenable to context-driven shifts reflecting other dimensions of

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS ingroup/outgroup categorization. In the current research we examined how different categorization contexts affect face processing, for both same-race and other-race faces.

Experiment 1: Random Presentation of Same-and Other-Race Faces

In the first experiment, we examined the effects of ingroup/outgroup university affiliation on face processing when same-race faces were presented along with other-race faces-that is, in an inter-racial context that provided both race and university affiliation as dimensions for ingroup/outgroup categorization. Following past research [START_REF] Hugenberg | Holistic processing is tuned for in-group faces[END_REF], we expected that perceivers would engage in greater configural processing of ingroup (sameuniversity) than outgroup (other-university) faces. However, we also expected that the interracial context would serve to keep race salient as a categorization alternative, with potential implications for the strength of university-based categorization effects. Given perceivers' likely fluency in the configural processing of same-race races, we expected that race salience would mitigate the influence of the newly-assigned group membership (i.e., university affiliation) for the processing of same-race faces. As a consequence, we anticipated that evidence for greater configural processing of same-university than other-university faces would emerge more strongly-or perhaps even only-for other-race faces (following [START_REF] Michel | Race categorization modulates holistic face encoding[END_REF][START_REF] Michel | Holistic face encoding is modulated by perceived face race: Evidence form perceptual adaptation[END_REF]. To attempt to isolate the effects to face encoding, we used a perceptual matching task and the opportunity for configural processing was manipulated by presenting faces as upright or inverted (cf. [START_REF] Maurer | The many faces of configural processing[END_REF].

Method

Participants and design. Thirty-three students from the University of Birmingham completed the study for course credit; all had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. The data for one participant were removed from the analysis because of an error rate in excess of 20%, Materials. The materials included face stimuli and university primes. The face stimuli were graphic files depicting 80 Black and 80 White faces, taken from previous research [START_REF] Shriver | Class, race, and the face: Social context modulates the cross-race effect in face recognition[END_REF] as well as from the CAL/PAL face database [START_REF] Minear | A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli[END_REF]) and the Stanford face database [START_REF] Eberhardt | Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of Black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes[END_REF]. All faces were adult men in a forward pose with neutral expressions. The images were standardized in Adobe Photoshop CS2 to be grayscale and sized 236 pixels vertically. An inverted version of each face was also created. This resulted in a total of 320 experimental stimuli. The university primes were graphic files depicting the University of Birmingham (sameuniversity prime) and University of Nottingham (other-university prime) names (in their respective corporate fonts) and official crests.

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C
The face stimuli were grouped into same-race, same-orientation pairs, with an effort to match paired stimuli along a variety of dimensions (e.g., luminance, contrast, head/hair shape). 1

The pairs were divided into sets such that each face appeared as an ingroup member for some participants but an outgroup member for others, and on a "same" trial for some but a "different" trial for others. Each face appeared four times per set (twice upright and twice inverted). Each stimulus set included 384 experimental trials, presented in random order.

Procedure. After providing informed consent, participants completed a short task designed to enhance their identification to their ingroup (University of Birmingham).

Specifically, participants completed a brief questionnaire, ostensibly from university student

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C

Results

Mean discrimination latencies served as the dependent measure of interest. 3 Due to the presence of outlying responses in the data set, response times over 2.5 standard deviations from the mean were excluded (6.09% of the data) along with trials where errors were committed

(2.69% of the data). The data were submitted to a 2 (trial type: same, different) × 2 (target race: same-race, other-race) × 2 (target university: same-university, other-university) × 2 (target orientation: upright, inverted) repeated-measures ANOVA.

The analysis revealed a significant main effect of target orientation, F(1, 31) = 48.23, p < .001, η p 2 = .60, demonstrating that participants were slower to discriminate inverted than The predicted Target Race × Target University × Target Orientation interaction was analyzed further by conducting separate Target University × Target Orientation ANOVAs for each target race (see Figure 2). For same-race faces, there was only a significant main effect of target orientation, F(1, 31) = 24.87, p < .001, η p 2 = .45. Participants responded more quickly to upright targets than to inverted targets (Ms = 909 and 989 ms, respectively); university categorization did not affect performance, F(1, 31) = 0.52, p = .48, η p 2 = .016.

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C
For other-race targets, the analysis revealed a significant main effect of target orientation, F(1,31) = 55.29, p < .001, η p 2 = .64, which was subsumed within a significant Target University × Target Orientation interaction, F(1, 31) = 11.84, p = .002, η p 2 = .28. Participants responded more quickly to upright than inverted other-race targets for both same-university targets, t(31) = 7.18, p < .001, and other-university targets, t(31) = 4.39, p < .001; however, inversion was significantly more disruptive for same-university than other-university targets, t(31) = 3.04, p = .

005.

Discussion

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS

The current study examined how non-race-based ingroup/outgroup categorization influences the perceptual encoding of same-race and other-race faces presented in an inter-racial context. In addition to the typically observed face-inversion effect (i.e., faster RTs for upright than inverted faces), the results demonstrated that, for other-race faces, inversion was more disruptive to the discrimination of same-university than other-university faces. For same-race faces, however, there were no effects of ingroup/outgroup categorization on the basis of university affiliation, and inversion was equally disruptive to the discrimination of sameuniversity and other-university faces.

We argue that this pattern emerged because the inter-racial context kept race salient as a dimension for categorization. For same-race faces, race salience would serve to encourage the typically observed differences in the processing of same-and other-race faces, that is, more configural processing of same-race faces. For same-race faces, the equivalence in processing same-university and other-university faces suggests that this "default" processing, once activated, is sufficiently fluent to mitigate against sensitivity to other bases for ingroup/outgroup categorization. For other-race faces, however, lack of expertise means that configural processing is not the default but can be employed when ingroup membership is stressed, as here by university affiliation.

Experiment 2: Blocked Presentation of Same-and Other-Race Faces

In the second experiment, we examined the effects of ingroup/outgroup university affiliation on face processing in an intra-racial context-that is, when same-race and other-race faces were presented in separate blocks, making university affiliation the most salient ingroup/outgroup categorization within each block. In past research [START_REF] Hugenberg | Holistic processing is tuned for in-group faces[END_REF], university categorization yielded stronger configural processing for same-university than Materials. The materials were as in Experiment 1.

Procedure. The procedure was as in Experiment 1, with one exception. Rather than completing the same/different task in one fully randomized block, participants completed the task in two blocks, one comprised only of Black faces and the other comprised only of White faces. Block order was randomized across participants.

Results

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS Mean discrimination latencies served as the dependent measure of interest. Due to the presence of outlying responses in the data set, response times over 2.5 standard deviations from the mean were excluded (1.99% of the data) along with trials where errors were committed

(5.48% of the data). The data were submitted to a 2 (trial type: same, different) × 2 (target race: same-race, other-race) × 2 (target university: same-university, other-university) × 2 (target orientation: upright/inverted) × 2 (block order: same-race-first, other-race-first) mixed-model ANOVA with block order as a between-participants factor.

The analysis revealed a significant main effect of target orientation, F(1, 42) = 52.20, p < .001, η p 2 = .55, demonstrating that participants were faster to discriminate upright than inverted targets (Ms = 795 and 842 ms, respectively). There was also a main effect of trial type, F(1, 42) = 6.87, p = .012, η p 2 = .14, such that participants were faster to respond "same" than "different" (Ms = 805 and 831 ms, respectively).

The analysis also yielded a number of significant interactions: Trial Type × Target Race, F(1, 42) = 4.29, p = .045, η p 2 = .093; Trial Type × Target University, F(1, 42) = 11.08, p = .002, η p 2 = .209; Trial Type × Target Orientation, F(1, 42) = 5.85, p = .020, η p 2 = .12; Target Race × Block Order, F(1, 42) = 7.87, p = .008, η p 2 = .16; and Trial Type × Target Race × Target University × Block Order, F(1, 42) = 5.49, p = .024, η p 2 = .12. These interactions were theoretically unimportant and did not moderate or interact with the predicted pattern, and so we did not analyze them further. We provide the means for the highest-order interactions (Trial Type × Target Orientation, Trial Type × Target Race × Target University × Block Order) in Tables 2 and3 for the reader's interest. 5 Importantly, the analysis also yielded the predicted Target University × Target Orientation interaction, F(1, 42) = 12.17, p =.001, η p 2 = .23 (see Figure 3). This interaction was

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS analyzed further by conducting paired t-tests, which demonstrated that, regardless of target race, participants were faster to respond to upright than inverted faces for both same-university targets, t(43) = 7.57, p = .001, and other-university targets, t(43) = 5.82, p = .001. Moreover, as with Black targets in Experiment 1, the inversion cost was greater for same-university than otheruniversity targets, t(43) = 3.51, p = .003. Unlike in Experiment 1, this pattern was not moderated by target race (Target Race ×Target University × Target Orientation F(1, 42) = 0.053, p = .82, η p 2 = .001).

Discussion

The current study examined how non-racial bases for ingroup/outgroup categorization influence the perceptual encoding of same-race and other-race faces presented in an intra-racial context. We once again found the typical face-inversion effect, and replicated the pattern of Experiment 1 in which inversion was more disruptive to the discrimination of other-race faces when those faces were categorized as same-university versus other-university. In contrast to Experiment 1, however, ingroup/outgroup categorization on the basis of university affiliation also influenced same-race face processing; inversion was more disruptive to the discrimination of same-race faces when those faces were categorized as same-university versus other-university.

Thus, when race salience was minimized, participants' processing was guided by the ingroup/outgroup dimension, which was most salient in the context. In this case, default configural processing was overridden for same-race faces categorized as belonging to another university.

General Discussion

These results of these two experiments demonstrate that other-race face processing is sensitive to non-racial ingroup/outgroup status regardless of racial context, but that the

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS sensitivity of same-race face processing to the same cues depends on the racial context in which targets are encountered. For other-race faces, non-racial ingroup/outgroup categorization influenced the way in which the faces were encoded, a novel result within the social categorization literature. Inversion was more disruptive to the processing of other-race faces when those faces were categorized as ingroup rather than outgroup members on the basis of university affiliation, suggesting that non-racial ingroup categorization induced stronger configural encoding. Moreover, this pattern held true regardless of whether the faces were presented in inter-racial (i.e., intermixed presentation) or intra-racial (i.e., blocked presentation) contexts.

For same-race faces, non-racial ingroup/outgroup categorization influenced the way in which the faces were encoded, but only in the intra-racial context. In this context, inversion was more disruptive to the processing of same-university than other-university faces. In the interracial context, however, inversion was equally disruptive to same-university and other-university faces. We suggest that when Black and White faces were intermixed, race became salient as a dimension for categorization and the familiarity and visibility of racial ingroup/outgroup status trumped university-based ingroup/outgroup status, such that all faces were perceived in terms of race. As a result, all same-race faces were perceived as ingroup members, and configural processing was adopted as the default. Only when racial groupings were weighted less strongly -when the faces were blocked by race-did participants perceive same-race other-university faces as outgroup members and override the configural processing default.

Stated differently, context can determine whether same-race faces are perceived as ingroup versus outgroup members, and inter-racial contexts promote ingroup categorization. This interpretation is supported by follow-up contrasts that explored the effect of context, in which we

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS combined the same-race data from Experiments 1 and 2. As we would expect, same-university faces were perceived as ingroup members regardless of the context in which they were presented; that is, inversion costs (and presumably configural processing) were equivalent for same-university faces presented in intra-racial and inter-racial contexts (Ms = 53 vs. 69 ms, respectively; t(74) = 1.001, p = .32). Other-university faces, however, were perceived as outgroup members to a greater extent when race was less salient; that is, inversion costs were smaller (indicating less configural processing) for other-university faces presented in an intraracial rather than inter-racial context (Ms = 38 vs. 84 ms, respectively; t(74) = 2.29, p = .025).

Our findings for the intra-racial context are consistent with previous research, which has focused on the effects of social categorization when same-race faces are encoded. [START_REF] Hugenberg | Holistic processing is tuned for in-group faces[END_REF], for example, presented same-race faces and provided evidence for greater configural processing of ingroup-than outgroup-categorized targets. These data indicate that social categorization can influence the extent to which same-race faces are processed configurally when the faces are presented in a mono-racial context. Our evidence, however, also demonstrates that this pattern does not hold for same-race faces when they appear in an interracial context, where non-racial ingroup-outgroup categorization exerts negligible influence. We suggest this reflects the increased salience of race when same-race and other-race faces are presented together. In this context, there might be automatic categorization of same-race faces as ingroup members (on the basis of race) that triggers configural encoding and is insensitive to non-visible ingroup/outgroup status. For other-race faces, however, the motivation afforded by another form of ingroup categorization may sufficient to offset categorization by visual cues such as race, leading to greater configural processing for ingroup than for outgroup members. Three caveats warrant mention. First, we relied solely on inversion effects as evidence for the role of configural processing. There is some controversy regarding whether inversion effects are underpinned solely by disruption to configural processes (without affecting feature coding), and whether configural processes may still be used even when faces are inverted. Sekuler [START_REF] Sekuler | Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing[END_REF], for example, provided evidence that non-linear processing of face features (which they took as the hallmark of configural processing) took place both when faces were upright and when they were inverted, though inverted faces were processed less efficiently (see also [START_REF] Gaspar | The effects of face inversion and contrastreversal on efficiency and internal noise[END_REF]. However, even if configural information is not completely lost when faces are inverted [START_REF] Sekuler | Inversion leads to quantitative, not qualitative, changes in face processing[END_REF], a relative loss of efficiency

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS for configural relative to featural information would render the processing of inverted faces more dependent on feature-based representations. This would fit with our finding that other-race faces categorized as outgroup members (and presumed to depend more on feature-based coding)

showed a reduced inversion effect relative to the same faces categorized as ingroup (presumed to depend on configural processing).

Second, it is important to note that all of our participants were White. A complete test of the other-race effect would require us to examine the performance of non-White participants.

Crossover interactions in same-race and other-race face processing as a function of participant race, however, are not always observed (e.g., [START_REF] Lindsay | Other-race face perception[END_REF][START_REF] Tanaka | A holistic account of the own-race effect in face recognition: Evidence from a cross-cultural study[END_REF]. This has been attributed to the fact that non-White participants are typically familiar with White faces (and more familiar with White faces than White participants are with non-White faces). Any attempt to replicate the current findings with non-White participants would need to take into account this confounding factor.

Finally, we note that the vast majority of our participants were female. [START_REF] Navarrete | Prejudice at the nexus of race and gender: An outgnroup male target hypothesis[END_REF] recently proposed that different psychological systems underpin intergroup bias for women and men, with women motivated by sexual coercion fears and men motivated by aggression and dominance motives. Whether these differing motives would have different outcomes for face processing is unclear. Indeed, just as fearful and angry expressions capture attention (Vuilleumier, 2002), it would seem plausible that both fear and dominance motivation should motivate attention, particularly to outgroup faces. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence for gender differences in same-versus other-race face processing in general, nor is there evidence in the available literature to suggest that perceiver sex moderates the finding that face inversion is more disruptive to the processing of

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS same-race than other-race faces. Together, these factors suggest that our findings are unlikely to be subject to gender differences. Nonetheless, this remains an empirical question that should be subjected to future scrutiny.

Conclusion

The current research demonstrated that the relative impact of non-racial ingroup/outgroup categorization on the encoding of same-race and other-race faces depends critically on context.

Other-race face processing is sensitive to non-racial ingroup/outgroup status regardless of racial context, but the sensitivity of same-race face processing to the same cues depends on the racial context in which targets are encountered; for same-race faces, non-racial ingroup/outgroup status exerts influence primarily in intra-racial contexts. We suggest that pre-existing (race) and newly generated group (university affiliation) categorizations can interact to modulate face encoding, and that processing of other-race faces is more sensitive to the availability of alternative ingroup/outgroup dimensions than is the processing of same-race faces.

A C C E P T E D

M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS Footnotes 1 This procedure meant that for "different" trials, any given face was always paired with the same other face. Although random pairing would have been optimal, this procedure was necessary to minimize participants' ability to use non-identity-specifying cues such as hair shape or skin tone to make "different" judgments (because such cues obviously could not be used to make "same" judgments).

2 We chose the University of Nottingham as the outgroup university because of its similarity to the University of Birmingham (e.g., geographic region, status, student demographics) and familiarity to University of Birmingham students. It is thus a relevant comparison for University of Birmingham students, without invoking status issues.

3 We also analyzed error rates. For both experiments, the error rates were generally low (overall average = 2%) and followed the same trends as the RT data (i.e., there was no evidence of a speed accuracy trade-off). The data analysis showed the same pattern of effects as the RT data and thus the results are not reported further.

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS participants were faster to respond "same" to same-university than other-university targets and "different" to other-university than same-university targets.

A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS

  CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS services, in which they reported five ways in which they were similar to their fellow University of Birmingham students.Participants then completed the target face perception task; all instructions and stimuli were presented via a personal computer running MediaLab and DirectRT research software(Empirisoft Corporation, 2006). Participants learned that during the task, they would see faces of students from either the University of Birmingham or the University of Nottingham. 2 They learned further than on each trial of the task, they would see two faces and that their task was to indicate as quickly and accurately as possible, by means of a key press, whether the faces depicted the same individual or two different individuals. Trials were initiated with the presentation of a fixation cross for 500 ms, followed by the university prime that appeared centered at the top of the screen for 1500 ms. Two faces then appeared below the prime, flanking the central fixation cross, and were displayed until participants produced a response. The intertrial interval was 1000 ms. Responses and their latencies were recorded by the computer program. Figure1depicts examples of stimuli used during the task.

  CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS other-university faces. That research, however, examined the processing of same-race faces only, and this was extended here to other-race face processing. In this context, we expected that participants would engage in greater configural processing of ingroup (same-university) than outgroup (other-university) faces irrespective of target race. Hugenberg and Corneille's work suggests that when race salience is minimized, the configural processes normally associated with same-race faces can be disrupted by outgroup categorization along another dimension. If outgroup categorization can disrupt the configural processing of same-race faces, then it should be equally able to disrupt the processing of other-race faces, with which perceivers often lack expertise..MethodParticipants and design. Forty-four students from the University of Birmingham completed the study for course credit; all had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. The data for one participant were removed from the analysis because of an error rate in excess of 20%, leaving 43 participants (41 female; M age = 20.7 years). The experiment was based on a 2 (trial type: same, different) × 2 (target race: same-race, other-race) × 2 (target university: sameuniversity, other-university) × 2 (target orientation: upright/inverted) × 2 (block order: samerace-first, other-race-first) mixed design with block order as a between-participants factor.

  CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS Our findings also extend recent work by[START_REF] Hehman | Where the division lies: Common ingroup identity moderates the cross-racial recognition effect[END_REF], who examined the effects of race and university categorization on recognition memory.Hehman et al. used a modified face-recognition paradigm where Black and White faces were spatially grouped at encoding by race or university affiliation to equate the salience of the two dimensions. Their results demonstrated that when target faces were grouped by race, participants recognized more same-race than other-race faces, irrespective of university affiliation. When target faces were grouped by university, however, participants recognized more ingroup than outgroup faces, irrespective of race. The authors explained their results in terms of the common ingroup identity model[START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model[END_REF], whereby a shared category dimension can offset the influence of a non-shared dimension-at least as long as the dimensions are equally salient. Our research adds to that of Hehman et al. by providing evidence for what happens when the processing context sets two potential categorization dimensions in competition (and where one is more visibly salient): When same-and other-race faces are encountered in a mixed context (Experiment 1), racial and non-racial forms of categorization interact to guide encoding.

Figure 1 .Figure 2 .Figure 3 .

 123 Figure 1. Example stimuli used in the experiments.

  Ms = 992 and 913 ms, respectively). There was also a number of significant interactions: Trial Type × Target University, F(1, 31) = 35.77, p < .001, η p 2 = .54; Trial Type × Target Race × Target University, F(1, 31) = 7.65, p = .009, η p 2 = .19; and the predicted Target Race × Target University × Target Orientation interaction, F(1, 31) = 7.57, p = .01 , η p 2 = .20.The Trial Type × Target University and Trial Type × Target Race × Target University interactions were theoretically unimportant and did not moderate or interact with the predicted pattern, and so we did not analyze them further. We provide the Trial Type × Target Race × Target University means in Table1for the reader's interest.4

	ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Running head: CONTEXT, CATEGORIZATION, AND OTHER-RACE EFFECTS
	upright targets (
	R I P T

Table 1

 1 Mean Discrimination Latencies (ms) as a Function of Trial Type, Target Race, and Target University, Experiment 1

		Same university (Birmingham)	Other university (Nottingham)
	"Same" trials
	Same race (White)	925 (35.29)	962 (43.48)
	Other race (Black)	924 (34.57)	950 (36.28)
	"Different" trials
	Same race (White)	999 (46.20)	934 (52.68)
	Other race (Black)	971 (37.57)	955 (41.11)
	Note. Numbers in parentheses represent standard error.

Table 2

 2 Mean Discrimination Latencies (ms) as a Function of Trial Type and Target Orientation, Experiment 2

		Upright faces Inverted faces
	"Same" trials	788 (19.78)	823 (24.21)
	"Different" trials	802 (17.45)	860 (20.61)
	Note. Numbers in parentheses represent standard error.

Table 3

 3 Mean Discrimination Latencies (ms) as a Function of TrialType, Target Race, Target University, and Block Order, Experiment 2

		Same-race block first	Other-race block first
		Same university	Other university	Same university	Other university
		(Birmingham)	(Nottingham)	(Birmingham)	(Nottingham)
	"Same" trials
	Same race
	(White)	817 (30.62)	840 (32.46)	761 (30.62)	778 (32.46)
	Other race
	(Black)	806 (33.13)	816 (36.59)	795 (33.13)	828 (36.59)
	"Different" trials
	Same race
	(White)	895 (28.24)	863 (29.15)	796 (28.24)	795 (29.16)
	Other race
	(Black)	818 (27.53)	823 (29.69)	829 (27.53)	832 (29.69)

Note. Numbers in parentheses represent standard error.

In general, the pattern suggested that participants were faster to respond "same" to same-university than other-university targets and faster to respond "different" to other-university than same-university targets, and that this pattern was more pronounced for same-race than other-race targets.

In general, the Trial Type × Target Orientation effect suggested that inversion costs were greater for "different" trials. The Trial Type × Target Race × Target Orientation × Block Order interaction was less clear-cut than the Trial Type × Target Race × Target Orientation interaction found in Experiment 1, but again provided general support for a pattern whereby

This work was conducted in partial fulfillment of a PhD at the University of Birmingham by the first author, and supported by grants from the ESRC to the second and third authors.

A C C E P T E D

M A N U S C R I P T

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT