Test of Hypothesis 3b: Perceptions of Competition as Mediator of the

Mediator of the Effects of the Social Comparison

Manipulation

I tested whether perceptions of competition with immigrants mediated the effect of the manipulation on the measures of attitudes toward immigrants using Hayes’ MEDIATE macro which is similar to the PROCESS macro described earlier, but uses bootstrapping procedures designed for multicategorical independent variables (Hayes & Preacher, 2013). First, I tested this model using general attitudes toward immigrants as the outcome. Because condition is a categorical variable with three levels, there are results for comparisons between the “Better than the US” and “Love Canada” conditions

Figure 4: Study 2: Mean admiration for immigrants by condition 3.1 4.08 4.23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

"Better than US" "Love Canada" "Describe Canada"

M e an Level o f A d m ir ation Condition

Figure 5: Study 2: Mean perceived competition for immigrants by condition 3.55 2.49 3.24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

"Better than US" "Love Canada" "Describe Canada"

M e an Level o f Per ce iv e d C o m p e titi o n Condition

(labelled D1), comparisons between the “Better than the US” and control conditions (labelled D2), and omnibus results for the whole model. A marginal direct effect of condition emerged, F(2, 47) = 3.08, p = .06. The D1 comparison was significant, B = - 10.94, t = -1.99, p = .05; however, the D2 comparison was not significant. Next, the D1 comparison significantly predicted perceived competition, B = 1.06, t = 2.03, p = .03; however, the D2 comparison was again non-significant. Perceived competition, in turn, negatively predicted attitudes toward immigrants, B = -11.44, t = -7.02, p < .001. Finally, I found that the D1 comparison significantly predicted general attitudes through

perceived competition, B = 12.17. The 95% confidence interval for the test of indirect effects ranged from -26.12 to -1.81. As zero falls outside this interval, I concluded that perceptions of competition significantly mediated the effect of the D1 comparison on general attitudes. As before, indirect effects for the D2 comparison were not significant.

Next, I tested the reverse mediation to compare my proposed mediational model to this alternative model. That is, I tested the same model, but with general attitudes toward immigrants as the mediator and perceived competition as the outcome. The direct effect of condition was not significant, F(2, 47) = .68, p = .51. Next, the D1 comparison significantly predicted general attitudes, B = -23.11, t = -3.13, p = .01; however, the D2 comparison was non-significant. Attitudes, in turn, negatively predicted perceived competition, B = -.05, t = -7.02, p < .001. Finally, I found that the D1 comparison significantly predicted perceived competition through general attitudes, B = 1.03. The 95% confidence interval for the test of indirect effects ranged from .35 to 1.87. As zero falls outside this interval, I concluded that general attitudes significantly mediated the

effect of the D1 comparison on perceived competition, suggesting bidirectional effects. As before, indirect effects for the D2 comparison were not significant.

Next, I tested this same model using contempt for immigrants as an outcome. A direct effect of condition emerged, F(2, 47) = 4.61, p = .02. The D1 comparison was marginally significant, B = .46, t = 1.84, p = .07; however, the D2 comparison was not significant. Next, the D1 comparison significantly predicted perceived competition, B = 1.06, t = 2.30, p = .03; however, the D2 comparison was again non-significant. Perceived competition, in turn, predicted contempt for immigrants, B = .42, t = 5.68, p <.001. Finally, I found that the D1 comparison significantly predicted contempt through perceived competition, B = .45. The 95% confidence interval for the test of indirect effects ranged from .08 to .88. As zero falls outside this interval, I concluded that perceptions of competition significantly mediated the effect of the D1 comparison on contempt. As before, indirect effects for the D2 comparison were not significant. Again, I tested the reverse mediation, that is, whether contempt mediates the relation between the manipulation and perceived competition. A direct effect of condition was not significant, F(2, 47) = 1.96, p = .15. Next, the D1 comparison significantly predicted contempt, B = 1.60, t = 7.75, p < .001; however, the D2 comparison was non-significant. Contempt, in turn, predicted perceived competition immigrants, B = .97, t = 5.68, p < .001. Finally, I found that the D1 comparison significantly predicted perceived competition through contempt, B = .88. The 95% confidence interval for the test of indirect effects ranged from .23 to 1.66. As zero falls outside this interval, I concluded that contempt significantly mediated the effect of the D1

comparison on perceived competition, suggesting bidirectional effects. As before, indirect effects for the D2 comparison were not significant.

Finally, I tested the model using admiration for immigrants as an outcome. A direct effect of condition was not significant. In this model, neither the D1 nor the D2 comparison were significant. The D1 comparison did, however, significantly predict perceived competition, B = 1.06, t = 2.30, p = .03; however, the D2 comparison was again non-significant. Perceived competition, in turn, negatively predicted admiration for immigrants, B = -.48, t = -3.15, p = .00. Finally, despite the lack of direct effects, I did find that the D1 comparison significantly negatively predicted admiration through perceived competition, B = -.51. The 95% confidence interval for the test of indirect effects ranged from -1.17 to -.07. As zero falls outside this interval, I concluded that perceived competition significantly mediated the effect of the D1 comparison on admiration. As before, indirect effects for the D2 comparison were not significant.

Again, I tested the reverse mediation of this model, that is, whether admiration mediates the relation between the manipulation and perceived competition. A direct effect of condition was not significant. In this model, neither the D1 nor the D2 comparison were significant. The D1 comparison did, however, marginally predict admiration, B = -1.02, t = -1.95, p = .06; however, the D2 comparison was again non- significant. Admiration, in turn, negatively predicted perceived competition with immigrants, B = -.37, t = -3.15, p = .01. Finally, I found that the D1 comparison significantly negatively predicted perceived competition through admiration, B = .38. The 95% confidence interval for the test of indirect effects ranged from .02 to 1.08. As zero falls outside this interval, I concluded that admiration significantly mediated the

effect of the D1 comparison on perceived competition suggesting bidirectional effects. As before, indirect effects for the D2 comparison were not significant.