+1443 776-2705 panelessays@gmail.com

Please check instructions

Consider different societal/cultural factors that can influence a person’s worldview. Select themes present in the topics we have discussed this term and discuss how they might be considered in different ways when you bring in cultural and societal factors to the mix of topics. This can include gender identity, sexual orientation, and racial/ethnic identity which are all different layers of individual identity and cultural presentation. It is encouraged that you select specific themes and cultures from across the globe to best address each of these points.

In your paper, include the following discussions: 

· At the start of the course, what was your worldview? How has this course impacted your worldview?

· What theories presented in our course materials support these changes? (i.e. racial identity, gender identity, sexual identity, cultural identity, etc.)

· How do you feel your worldview now meets, or falls short, of the three multicultural competencies identified in class? (i.e. awareness of your own culture, understanding other worldviews, and development of culturally appropriate interpersonal skills)

· Explain how you feel your perception of global psychology and the presence of a global society of humans has changed.

· When reviewing these ideas, keep in mind how they impact a person’s mental health.

· Your paper must be at least 2-3 pages in length and formatted according to APA guidelines. Page count does not include a title page or references page.

·

You are required to include pagination, headings, citations, and a running head.

· You are required to use at least 2 peer-reviewed journal articles for your project from the last 5 years. You will find these articles from research journals in the library. Topics of the articles must be related to course materials. 

·

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j i n t r e l

Cultural sensitivity or cultural stereotyping? Positive and
negative effects of a cultural psychology class

Emma E. Buchtel ∗

Department of Psychological Studies, Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, N.T.,
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 21 May 2013
Received in revised form 9 August 2013
Accepted 17 September 2013

Keywords:
Cultural sensitivity
Cultural psychology
Cultural competence training
Intercultural training
Stereotypes
Sociotypes

a b s t r a c t

Cultural psychology ultimately aims to increase intercultural understanding, but it has
also been accused of reifying stereotypes. Can learning about cultural psychology research
cause students to increase their cultural sensitivity, or does it increase stereotyped and
rigid thinking about cultural others? Students in an undergraduate cultural psychology
course (N = 34) were compared to students in control psychology courses (N = 20) in pre-
and post-course measures of cultural awareness, cultural intelligence, essentialistic think-
ing, prejudice, moral relativism, and endorsement of stereotypes and sociotypes. Compared
to students in the control courses, cultural psychology students increased in cultural aware-
ness, moral relativism, and meta-cognitive cultural intelligence, but students who received
lower grades in the course also increased their endorsement of stereotypes that were not
endorsed by cultural psychology research. Implications for intercultural training and the
communication of research on cultural differences are discussed.

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Knowledge of cultural differences is one of the basic requirements for achieving cultural sensitivity, and discovering
cultural differences is fundamental to cultural psychology research (e.g. Fouad & Arredondo, 2007; Spitzberg & Changnon,
2009). But teaching about cultural differences is rife with potential dangers: Might it encourage rigid thinking about cultures
or individuals? What if it is misinterpreted as legitimizing cultural stereotypes? Could it even increase prejudice, at least in
some people?

With few exceptions (e.g. Fischer, 2011; see also Mendenhall et al., 2004), past research on intercultural training has not
empirically assessed the potential negative effects of learning about culture nor has it explored individual differences in
reactions to cultural training, though these effects are often a concern of trainers (e.g. Coleman & Raider, 2006; Jenks, 2011).
In this paper, I first outline some of the controversies around teaching and learning about cultural difference, and illustrate
the controversy with a longitudinal study of students taking cultural versus other psychology courses. The results indicate

ELSEVIER

CrossMark

that learning about cultural psychology can increase skills and attitudes that are precursors of intercultural competence;
however, it can also have problematic effects on some students.

∗ Tel.: +852 2948 8756.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]

0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.003

1

a
c

C
i
c
o
m
s

p
a
b
G
s

r
H
a
s

1

c
a
c
t
a
c
w
t
t
a
f
a

t
s
o
e
v
T
t
b
t
2
i

1

t
o
a
2
a
s

E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52 41

.1. The controversy: is knowledge of cultural differences helpful or harmful?

In general, to research and teach about cultural differences is to face head-on some of the most complex questions
bout multiculturalism. How can one emphasize cultural differences and yet avoid the usual attendant features of social
ategorization: stereotyping and prejudice?

The potential dangers of increasing knowledge of cultural differences has led to conflicted advice about its usefulness.
ultural competence trainers frequently wrestle with how, or even whether, to teach about cultural differences. For example,

ntercultural conflict resolution trainers Coleman and Raider (2006) admit to often skipping the cultural component of
onflict resolution training because of possible misuse. Similarly, in the area of mental and physical health services, a number
f authors (e.g. Eiser & Ellis, 2007; Jenks, 2011; Whaley & Davis, 2007) suggest that while teaching specific cultural differences
ay be a necessary first step towards cultural competence, it can lead to overreliance on and legitimization of cultural

tereotypes.
On the other hand, recent research has suggested that acknowledgement of group differences can be associated with

ositive effects. Multicultural ideologies among majority group members are associated with more felt warmth and less bias
gainst minorities (Wolsko, Park, & Judd, 2006; Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000). Conversely, colour-blind ideologies
y majority group members have been associated with worse outcomes for minorities in the workplace (Plaut, Thomas, &
oren, 2009), lower multicultural counselling competence (Neville, Spanierman, & Doan, 2006), and lower awareness of
ocietal racism (Steinfeldt & Wong, 2010).

Among cultural psychologists, revealing cultural differences is seen as a necessary corrective for mainstream psychology
esearch’s overwhelming dependence on white, educated, and American participants (Heine & Norenzayan, 2006; Henrich,
eine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Cultural psychology researchers may also have an unstated goal to increase “understanding and
ppreciation of cultural differences” (Heine, 2012, p. 26). Nevertheless, cultural psychology has been criticized as encouraging
tereotyped and essentialistic thinking about group differences (Heine & Norenzayan, 2006).

.2. Question 1: Does cultural psychology encourage students to become more culturally aware and open-minded?

One of the first questions about cultural psychology, then, is whether or not learning about cultural psychology research
an have positive effects on intercultural interactions. The need to acknowledge and know about group differences, as well
s acquire non-judgmental attitudes towards these differences, is emphasized in most theoretical models of intercultural
ompetence. In an evaluation of more than 22 models of intercultural competence, Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) found
hat knowledge (mainly of culture-specific information) and attitudes such as flexibility, respect, and open-mindedness were
mong the most common themes. For example, Sue’s model of Multicultural Counselling Competence—the basis of many
ounselling psychology training programmes—emphasizes cultural knowledge as one of the three key components, along
ith appropriate beliefs/attitudes and interpersonal skills (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992). Similarly, Bennett (1993)

heorized that in order to develop intercultural sensitivity, one must pass beyond an ethnocentric stage—in which cul-
ural differences are either unknown or dismissed—to more advanced stages where cultural differences are acknowledged,
ccepted, and integrated into behaviour. Finally, the popular Cultural Intelligence scale (Ang et al., 2007) emphasizes four dif-
erent elements, which include knowledge of other cultures (cognitive cultural intelligence [CQ]) and awareness of cultural
spects of interactions (meta-cognitive CQ).

These models suggest that learning about cultural psychology could be a first step in acquiring cultural competence. Cul-
ural psychology’s focus on cultural differences could support initial steps in the “knowledge” aspect of cultural competence:
ensitivity to the cultural elements of interpersonal interactions. Additionally, the attitude of neutral, scientific objectivity
f cultural psychology research could encourage readers to be non-judgmental about the practices of other cultures. For
xample, cultural psychologists assume that differences in psychological tendencies emerge because they have practical
alue: in different cultural environments, different thought patterns are more useful (e.g. Buchtel & Norenzayan, 2008).
hough a cultural psychology course may not be explicitly designed to increase cultural competence, cultural competence
raining programmes often have similar goals of moving students to an intermediate stage of cultural sensitivity, typified
y accurately identifying cultural influences and developing an appreciation of other cultural worldviews (as a first step
owards a future goal of full behavioural fluency in another culture; e.g. Bhawuk, 1998; Crandall, George, Marion, & Davis,
003). Positive results of a cultural psychology course, then, might be seen in greater awareness of cultural dimensions to

ntercultural interactions and less judgmental attitudes towards cultural differences.

.3. Question 2: Does cultural psychology increase essentialism, group entitativity, and prejudice?

However, there are also dangers to learning about cultural differences. Cultural psychology research often shows that
here are group differences, but not that these cultural differences are unchangeable or that they exert an equal influence
n every individual identified with that group. Nevertheless, students of cultural psychology necessarily increase their

wareness of group differences, which may reify or exaggerate group boundaries and characteristics (Rosenthal & Crisp,
006). Such thinking may result in essentialistic or entitative thinking about cultures and individuals: thinking about groups
s if they have an “essence” that is immutably characteristic of group members, thus making individual group members
eem more similar to one another and categorically different from members of other groups.

42 E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52

Essentialistic thinking has frequently been associated with negative outcomes, especially stereotyping and prejudice.
Beliefs in group “essences” are argued to be the basis of stereotyping and prejudice (Yzerbyt & Rocher, 2002), and a belief
in the immutability of social group categories has been particularly linked to stereotyped and negative attitudes towards
outgroups (Haslam, Bastian, Bain, & Kashima, 2006). Stronger endorsement of abstract stereotypes about groups is typically
(and logically) linked with beliefs that individual group members are interchangeable (e.g. Crawford, Sherman, & Hamilton,
2002; Hamilton, Sherman, & Rodgers, 2004). Similarly, entity theorists—those who believe that individuals have a fixed
nature—use stereotypes more and perceive more within-group homogeneity than incremental theorists (Levy, Plaks, Hong,
Chiu, & Dweck, 2001; Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998). Haslam and Levy (2006) also found that “entitative essentialism”
about homosexuality (seeing homosexuals as a group with clear boundaries and informative, distinguishing features) was
associated with greater prejudice.

Exposure to cultural psychology research may increase perceptions of cultural identity as important and immutable. For
the sake of communicability, cultural psychology articles and textbooks often use terms such as “East Asians” and “East Asian
culture”; this may make it easier to think of “East Asians” as a bounded, distinctive category that is quite informative about
the characteristics of all East Asian individuals. Moreover, some immutability of cultures over time is assumed in order to
explain why modern psychological differences exist. Though cultural changes such as increasing individualism have been
documented (e.g. Hamamura, 2012; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008), between-culture differences are
often theorized to have historical roots extending to thousands of years ago (e.g. Nisbett, 2003). On the other hand, cultural
psychology also focuses on aspects of cultural differences that could diminish essentialistic thinking. Culture itself, after all,
is not “genetic,” and is thus more easily understood as something that can change over time (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011),
and change within individuals is especially emphasized in the acculturation and cultural frame-switching literature (e.g.
Heine & Lehman, 2004; Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000).

It is therefore of interest to test whether learning about cultural psychology research could lead to essentialistic thinking,
either of cultures or individual members of cultures. Moreover, given the usual links between essentialism and prejudice as
summarized above, it is a concern that negative attitudes towards cultural others might also increase. In particular, even if
cultural psychology students become cognitively less judgmental about the practices of other cultures as suggested above,
this “nonjudgmental” attitude could be accompanied or precipitated by a lack of caring: emotional cooling towards those
other cultures.

1.4. Question 3: Does cultural psychology encourage stereotyping, not sociotyping?

One of the most commonly encountered criticisms of cultural psychology is that it encourages stereotyping (Heine
& Norenzayan, 2006). Abstract descriptions of cultural differences can take negative or positive forms. Stereotypes are
typically perceived as inaccurate, prejudiced perceptions of groups that are misused to describe all individuals within the
group. However, stereotypes may also take the form of sociotypes: accurate, if schematic, knowledge about cultures (Triandis,
1994), which arguably is the aim (or unintended result) of much cultural psychology research. Recent research and theorizing
on stereotype accuracy has suggested that the use of stereotyped knowledge can in fact result in more, rather than less,
accurate interpersonal perceptions (Human & Biesanz, 2011; Jussim, 2005; Jussim, Cain, Crawford, Harber, & Cohen, 2009),
and specific cultural knowledge, even in the form of stereotypes, can help explain intercultural interactions that might
otherwise seem totally bizarre (Lee & Duenas, 1995).

Nevertheless, a perpetual problem in the stereotype accuracy literature is that not all stereotypes are accurate (Jussim,
2005). Cultural psychology research is particularly controversial in this regard: some have evinced scepticism about the
applicability of cultural psychology to interpersonal/intercultural interactions at all, cautioning against the misinterpreta-
tion of “statistical significance” as “practical significance” (e.g. Matsumoto, Grissom, & Dinnel, 2001). Moreover, in cultural
psychology, the typical knowledge one might be expected to acquire may be easily mistaken as confirmation of stereotypes,
especially since it is often phrased in absolute and racial terms such as “East Asians are more collectivistic than Westerners”
(Matsumoto et al., 2001). As part of their growing comfort with acknowledging cultural differences, students of cultural
psychology may mistakenly assume there is truth to most cultural stereotypes, whether or not they have been supported
by research.

1.5. Question 4: Are there individual differences in reactions to cultural psychology?

Finally, one understudied aspect of cultural competence training is the identification of individual differences in how stu-
dents absorb and evaluate their new cultural knowledge. An accurate understanding and application of cultural differences
requires students to hold in mind many seeming contradictions—that culture powerfully affects mind and behaviour, but
any one individual you meet may be different from their cultural average; that cultural groups are importantly different from
one another and yet also importantly similar; that stereotypes are sometimes accurate, and sometimes not; that cultures can
stay the same over ages while also changing at a frenetic pace. While some students may embrace these complexities, others

may mainly acquire a simplified version, leading to individual differences in reactions to training. For example, DeJaeghere
and Cao (2009) found that there were large individual differences in the development of secondary school teachers who went
through 2–3 years of cultural competence training, with some increasing in intercultural competence and others decreasing;
the causes of these individual differences were not identified. In one of the few studies explicitly measuring the effect of

i
o

w
s
C
c
c
s
e
b
w
a

1

m

H
i

H

c
s

H
i

H

d

H
w

t
p

H
t

H

H
s

1

w
P
c

2

2

c

E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52 43

ndividual differences, Fischer (2011) found that in a brief intercultural training course for undergraduate students, more
pen-minded students experienced greater increases in their motivation to engage with other cultures.

In a cultural psychology class, student motivation and pre-course essentialistic thinking may especially affect how and
hat they learn. First, students with less motivation or those who have more difficulty with course material might acquire a

implistic understanding of cultural psychology, which would lend support to the pessimistic predictions described above.
onversely, those who learn more easily or put more effort into learning might retain awareness of issues such as within-
ulture variability and the differences between sociotypes and stereotypes, thus avoiding some of the potential negative
onsequences, while at the same time learning more cultural awareness and cultural knowledge from the course. Second,
tudents who start the course with more essentialistic thinking about people and culture may be more receptive to acknowl-
dging cultural differences (Fischer, 2011), leading to larger increases in the willingness to endorse stereotypes in general,
ut also larger increases in positive effects such as cultural awareness and being less judgmental (“They can’t help being that
ay—it’s unchangeable—so why bother asking them to change”). It is thus of interest to study how individual differences

mong students at the beginning of a course would affect their attitude changes over the semester.

.6. Hypotheses

To answer the above four questions, I propose the following hypotheses:
Question 1 asks whether students of a cultural psychology course would increase in cultural awareness and open-

indedness. Assuming that cultural psychology may be a kind of intercultural competence training, I would predict:

ypothesis 1a. Students in a cultural psychology course will increase their awareness of cultural effects on intercultural
nteractions. . .

ypothesis 1b. . . .and will become less judgmental of the practices of other cultures.

Question 2 addresses the issue of potential negative effects of learning about cultural psychology. Because emphasizing
ultural boundaries is associated with essentialistic thinking, which is in turn associated with prejudice, past research
uggests the following hypotheses:

ypothesis 2a. Students in a cultural psychology course will increase their essentialistic thinking about both cultures and
ndividuals. . .

ypothesis 2b. . . .and also have more negative attitudes towards cultural outgroups.

Regarding Question 3, on the topic of stereotyping versus sociotyping, critics of cultural psychology have pointed out the
egree to which cultural psychology reifies and relies on stereotypes. A pessimist would thus predict that:

ypothesis 3. Students in a cultural psychology class will increase their endorsement of common cultural stereotypes,
hether or not these stereotypes have been explicitly taught.

Finally, Question 4 asks whether or not individual differences among students will affect how students are influenced by
aking the course. In particular, depth of insight into course material (here, represented by final grades in the course) and
re-course essentialistic thinking may influence student outcomes in the following manner:

ypothesis 4a. Students who earn better grades in a cultural psychology course will have more positive outcomes from
he course (as in Hypothesis 1);

ypothesis 4b. Students with poorer grades will have more negative outcomes (as in Hypotheses 2 and 3).

ypothesis 4c. Students with greater levels of essentialistic thinking at the beginning of a cultural psychology course will
how increased effects of attending a cultural psychology course, as in Hypotheses 1 and 2.

.7. The current study

To observe these processes in a cultural psychology class, a variety of explicit and implicit pre- and post-course measures
ere used to observe the naturalistic effects of taking a one-semester (12-week), 4th-year cultural psychology course.

arallel questionnaires were given to students of other non-cultural psychology courses, and change over time among the
ultural psychology students was compared to the change over time among non-cultural psychology students.

. Method

.1. Participants and design

Fifty-four undergraduate students in a North American university participated: 34 students in a 4th-year Cultural Psy-
hology lecture course (82% female; 38% Caucasian, 42% East Asian, 20% other; average age = 23 years), and 20 students in

44 E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52

Table 1
Means and standard deviations of variables.

Variable Time 1 Time 2

Control group Cultural
Psychology group

Control group Cultural
Psychology group

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Cultural Awareness 0.43 0.73 0.41 0.65 0.48 0.68 0.90 0.82
Cognitive CQ 3.99 0.93 4.30 1.17 3.90 0.79 4.20 1.04
Motivational CQ 5.04 0.97 5.22 0.77 5.04 0.86 5.15 0.89
Meta-Cognitive CQ 4.88 0.96 5.24 0.89 4.64 0.93 5.30 0.86
Behavioural CQ 4.92 0.82 4.75 0.89 4.69 0.77 4.92 0.94
Moral Relativism 4.06 0.84 4.48 0.84 3.98 0.96 4.76 0.79
Essentialism: IPT 3.83 1.49 4.20 1.42 4.02 1.06 4.07 1.45
Essentialism: IMT 3.54 1.10 3.66 1.09 3.85 0.89 3.70 1.28
Cultural Entitativity 4.07 0.76 4.29 0.67 4.30 0.60 4.56 0.64
Prejudice: Warmth bias 20.02 15.01 13.84 13.71 13.87 11.15 12.63 13.36
Overall Stereotype Endorsement 3.49 0.66 3.43 0.59 3.28 0.49 3.62 0.50
Positive Stereotype Endorsement 3.58 0.69 3.52 0.59 3.38 0.54 3.69 0.53

Negative Stereotype Endorsement 3.34 0.71 3.28 0.75 3.13 0.57 3.50 0.59
Taught Stereotype Endorsement 3.68 0.72 3.61 0.67 3.43 0.45 3.68 0.57
Untaught Stereotype Endorsement 3.37 0.69 3.33 0.59 3.20 0.54 3.58 0.50

two unrelated 4th-year psychology courses (Control condition; 100% female1; 35% Caucasian, 45% East Asian, 20% other;
average age = 22 years). Participants were paid $10 to fill out a survey twice, once in the first two weeks of the semester
and once in the last two weeks of the semester. The cultural psychology course, with approximately 50 students, was in
traditional lecture format and used the textbook Cultural Psychology by Steven J. Heine (2009). Lecture material was drawn
from the textbook, and class assignments consisted of a written research proposal and two exams. The two control classes,
on neuropsychology topics, were also 50-student lecture classes delivered in the same semester as the cultural psychology
course, and contained little to no discussion of culture.

2.2. Measures

At both times, students filled out the following measures of cultural awareness, moral relativism (a proxy for non-
judgmental attitudes), essentialism, prejudice, and stereotype endorsement. Means and standard deviations for each scale
are shown in Table 1, and correlations between scales are available online as supplementary data (Online Table 1).

Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.
2013.09.003.

2.2.1. Hypothesis 1a: Cultural Awareness
Cultural Awareness was measured with an open-ended dialogue analysis (based on Storti, 1994). Participants read an

ambiguous dialogue between two people from different cultures who may or may not have had a misunderstanding, and
were asked to explain, “What do you see happening?” A counterbalanced design randomly assigned participants to read one
of two dialogues at Time 1, and the other at Time 2, to prevent familiarity effects. Open-ended answers to the dialogues were
scored by two research assistants blind to Course and Time conditions. A score of 2 was given if the participant mentioned
the characters’ cultural backgrounds and accurately identified the source of the misunderstanding, a score of 1 if one of
criteria was met, and a score of 0 if neither criterion was met (see Appendix for examples). Initial agreement was 84.4%
(ICC = .91, p < .001), with disagreements resolved through discussion with the author (who was also blind to conditions).

2.2.2. Hypothesis 1a: Cultural Intelligence
Cultural Intelligence (CQ) was measured with the 20-item self-report measure of four cultural intelligence subscales:

Cognitive, Motivational, Meta-Cognitive, and Behavioural CQ (Ang et al., 2007), ˛’s from .68 to .78 at Time 1, ˛’s from .72 to
.82 at Time 2.

2.2.3. Hypothesis 1b: Moral Relativism
Moral Relativism was used as a proxy for non-judgmental attitudes towards cultural differences. The 10-item Relativism

subscale of Forsyth’s Ethics Position Questionnaire (1980) was used, with items such as, “What is ethical varies from one

situation or society to another” and “Different cultures’ moral standards cannot be compared as to ‘rightness”’ measured on
a 1–7 Likert scale (Time 1 ̨ = .76, Time 2 ̨ = .87).

1 The two classes were different in gender proportion, U = 280, z = 1.97, p = .048. Because of the low number of male participants we were unable to test
for effects of gender, though none were hypothesized.

2

h
b
M
t
m

c
.

2

(
a
W
s
E

2

t
t
e
b
f

2

A
a
w
a
[
c
e

2
o
p
a
a
s
t
a
i
t
n
s
a
n

3

3

3

w
c

E.E. Buchtel / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 39 (2014) 40–52 45

.2.4. Hypothesis 2a: Essentialism
Two measures of individual essentialism were used. The 3-item Implicit Person Theory (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995,

enceforth IPT) measures “fixed” versus “incremental” views of individuals (e.g. “The kind of person someone is, is something
asic about them, and it can’t be changed very much”), ̨ = .84 and .87 at Time 1 and 2 respectively. A new four-item Implicit
ind Theory scale (IMT), based on the IPT, was constructed to specifically tap into the idea that an individual’s way of

hinking is fixed. The four items were: “The way a person’s mind works is something very fundamental and can’t be changed
uch,” “Whether a person is an analytical thinker or not is deeply ingrained in their mind. It cannot be changed very much,”

The way someone’s mind works can change substantially, even as an adult (reverse scored),” and “There is not much that
an be done to change the basic way someone’s brain works.” This four-item scale showed adequate reliability, ̨ = .74 and
79 at Times 1 and 2 respectively.

.2.5. Hypothesis 2a: Cultural Entitativity
Cultural Entitativity was measured with two 12-item Group Entitativity scales of East Asians and Westerners respectively

based on Castano, Yzerbyt, & Bourguignon, 2003), which measured perceptions of East Asians (alternatively Westerners)
s being similar to each other, having a characteristic nature, and having strong ties within the group. East Asians and
esterners were chosen because they are typical comparison groups in cultural psychology research. The two scales were

trongly correlated (Time 1 r = .49, p < .001 and Time 2 r = .30, p = .026) and were combined into a 24-item scale of Cultural
ntitativity, Time 1 ̨ = .90 and Time 2 ̨ = .87.

.2.6. Hypothesis 2b: Prejudice
Prejudice, conceptualized as negative feelings about outgroups, was measured through a Feeling Thermometer rating

ask (Wolsko et al., 2000). Participants were presented with a list of 16 commonly known ethnic groups, selected from the
op 20 ethnic origins in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2001), and asked to indicate how warmly or coolly they felt towards
ach ethnicity on a 0 (“very coolly”) to 100-degree (“very warmly”) scale. Participants also reported their parents’ ethnic
ackgrounds. Similar to Wolsko et al. (2000), a Warmth Bias score was calculated for each participant by taking the warmth
elt towards his/her own ethnic group(s) and subtracting the average warmth he/she felt towards all other groups.

.2.7. Hypothesis 3: Stereotype Endorsement
Finally, a Stereotype …