Identity and prejudice in everyday interactions
Creators: name: Weißflog, Marie Isabelle
name: Hofmann, Wilhelm
name: Grigoryan, Lusine
name: Tropp, Linda R.
Publisher: name: OSF Registries
Year: 2023
Subjects: subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology

description: Identity and prejudice in everyday interactions Preregistration template from Kirtley, O. J., Lafit, G, Hiekkaranta, A. P., Achterhof, R., &amp; Myin-Germeys, I. (2019, March 20). A pre-registration template for studies using Experience Sampling Methods (ESM). Retrieved from osf.io/2chmu. DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/2CHMU Study Information 1. Title (required) 1.1. Identity and prejudice in everyday interactions 2. Authors (required) Lusine Grigoryan, Ruhr University Bochum Marie Isabelle Weißflog, Ruhr University Bochum Wilhelm Hofmann, Ruhr University Bochum Linda Tropp, University of Massachusetts Amherst 3. Description (optional) This study aims to investigate how the processes of social categorization, identification, and prejudice unfold in everyday interactions. We assess how the baseline levels of identity centrality and intergroup attitudes translate into category salience and attitudes when interacting with others, and how the frequency and quality of these interactions, in turn, translate into attitude change. Moreover, we test how perceived discrimination and the salience of stigmatized group memberships in interactions impact participants’ well-being and mental health. 4. Hypotheses (required) 4.1. Intergroup contact and attitudes H1.1. The higher the number of shared group memberships between the participant and the interaction partner, the more similar the partner is perceived to be (a), the more positive the attitude towards the partner (b), and the more willingness to interact in the future (c). H1.2. The higher the participant is on right-wing authoritarianism (RWO) and social dominance orientation (SDO), the stronger is the relationship between the number of shared group memberships with the partner and attitude towards the partner. H1.3. The stronger the baseline ingroup bias on a dimension, the more frequently people interact with similar others on that dimension. H1.4. The stronger the baseline ingroup bias on a dimension, the less frequently people interact with dissimilar others on that dimension. H1.5. The more frequently participants interact with dissimilar others on a dimension, the weaker is ingroup bias on that dimension at T2, controlling for ingroup bias at T1. H1.6. The more positive the average attitude towards dissimilar interaction partners, the stronger is the negative relationship between frequency of interactions and ingroup bias at T2, controlling for ingroup bias at T1. H1.7. Frequency and quality of interactions with dissimilar others mediate the relationship between baseline frequency and quality of interactions and ingroup bias at T2, controlling for ingroup bias at T1. 4.2. Identity centrality and category salience H2.1. Identity centrality leads to a higher frequency of spontaneous recall of that group membership in descriptions of others. H2.2. Identity centrality leads to a higher frequency of prompted recall of that group membership in descriptions of others. H2.3. The frequency of salience of a group membership in interactions leads to higher centrality of that group membership to identity. H2.4. The more central a group membership to identity, the more positive are attitudes towards similar (vs. dissimilar) others on that dimension. H2.5. Bicultural identity integration among ethnic minorities buffers the negative impact of perceived discrimination on mental health. 4.3. Coping with discrimination H3.1. Perceived discrimination in interactions has an immediate negative impact on mood (a), happiness (b), and self-esteem (c). H3.2. The link between perceived discrimination and mood (a), happiness (b), and self-esteem (c) is stronger if discrimination occurred on a dimension central to identity. H3.3. The recovery of mood, happiness and self-esteem levels after a perceived discrimination event is slower if discrimination occurred on a dimension central to identity. H3.4. The frequency of salience of stigmatized group memberships in everyday interactions has a negative impact on life satisfaction (a) and mental health (b). H3.5. The frequency of discriminatory events in everyday interactions has a negative impact on life satisfaction (a) and mental health (b). 4.4. Belief-indicative vs. status-indicative groups H4.1. Groups that are seen as more entitative and essentialized are seen as more belief-indicative (a), but not as more status-indicative (b). H4.2. Baseline ingroup bias is stronger on belief-indicative than on status-indicative dimensions of categorization. H4.3. Belief-indicativeness, but not status-indicativeness of a dimension moderates the link between ingroup membership and attitude towards the partner. H4.4. More discrimination occurs on belief-indicative than on status-indicative dimensions. H4.5. Individuals high on right-wing authoritarianism spontaneously recall belief-indicative group memberships of the interaction partner more frequently than those low on right-wing authoritarianism. H4.6. Individuals high on social dominance orientation spontaneously recall status-indicative group memberships of the interaction partner more frequently than those low on social dominance orientation. Design Plan 5. Study type (required) Observational study 6. Blinding (required for intervention studies) No blinding is involved in this study. 7. Is there any additional blinding in this study? NA 8. Study design (required) Correlational longitudinal design Sampling Plan 9. Existing data (required) As of the date of submission of this research plan for preregistration, the data have not yet been collected, created, or realized. 10. Explanation of existing data (optional) NA 11. ESM data collection procedure (required) 11.1. Study duration (number of days) The ESM period lasts for 14 days. 11.2. Type of sampling scheme: We use a semi-random sampling scheme. Participants receive 4 signals during the day between 10 AM and 10 PM. Each signal is randomly scheduled within one of four 2-hour intervals during the day, with a one- or two-hour break in-between (10.00 – 12.00, 13.00-15.00, 17.00 – 19.00, 20.00 – 22.00). 11.3. Items and completion time. The ESM questionnaire consists of a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 26 items, depending on responses to certain items. Twelve of these items are Likert-type, eleven are multiple-choice, two are open-ended, and one is a grouping task. The mean completion time based on pilot data (N=130) is 2.2 min., median=1.4 min. 11.4. Time-out specifications. Participants will have one hour to respond to the questionnaire, after which the questionnaire will not be available. 11.5. Additional passive monitoring. NA 11.6. ESM instruction. The ESM instructions will be provided in writing: first in the participant information sheet, and then through follow-up instruction emails. 11.7. Hardware and software used All participants will use their own smartphones. The questionnaire will be hosted on the online platform Qualtrics. Survey links will be distributed via the Samply app (https://samply.uni-konstanz.de/). 11.8. Incentivization and increasing participant engagement. Participants will receive €5 (or 0.5 VPN hours for students) upon completion of the intake survey and another €45 (or 4.5 VPN hours for students) if they have filled out more than 75% of the signals (at least 42) and completed the final questionnaire. Participants will receive no additional compensation if less than 42 signals are completed. 12. Sample size (number of participants) (required) We aim to recruit a total of 200 participants. We will set up quotas on Qualtrics to recruit an equal number of ethnic majority (German) and minority (Turkish) participants and an equal number of men and women. Young participants (≤ 30 y.o.) and students will constitute not more than 50% of the sample. We will aim for N=240 participants for the intake survey to account for participant attrition. 13. Rationale for sample size: Temporal design and number of participants (optional) The sample size estimate is based on feasibility considerations, specifically, availability of funds. Cross-level interactions are the smallest effects of interest in this study. Based on a simulation conducted with the simr package in R (Green &amp; Macleod, 2016), the likelihood of finding a small cross-level interaction (β=0.05) in a sample of 200 participants, 50 observations per participant, with an alpha level of 0.05, is 95%. Variables Based on a preliminary exploratory study (N = 68), ten dimensions of social categorization were selected to be included in the questionnaire: gender, age, occupation, education, income, political ideology, religion, migration background, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. 14. Measured non-ESM/time invariant variables The baseline questionnaire includes the following measures in the order presented here. 14.1. Socio-demographic background. Gender, age, occupation, level of education, subjective income, migration background, ethnocultural self-identification, religion, political self-placement (left-right), and sexual orientation. 14.2. Subjective well-being is measured with the 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS, Diener et al., 1985; German adaptation by Janke &amp; Glöckner-Rist, 2014). 14.3. Mental health indicators are assessed with the 21-item version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS, Henry &amp; Crawford, 2005; German adaptation by Nilges &amp; Essau, 2015). 14.4. Belief- and status-indicativeness. Each of the ten dimensions will be rated with a 6-item BISI scale (Grigoryan et al., 2022). The instruction reads: “Imagine the only thing you know about someone is their [group; e.g., gender]. What can you tell about this person?” Example of a belief item: “Can you tell what kind of moral beliefs this person has?” Example of a status item: “Can you tell how successful this person is?” An additional item will measure trust inferences: “Can you tell how trustworthy this person is?” 14.5. Intergroup attitudes. Attitudes towards 2-3 groups on each dimension, 26 in total, are measured with 3 items: a feelings thermometer (cold-warm feelings towards the group), average competence of the group members, and a desire to have a neighbor from that group. Each of these items are rated on a 100-point scale. The groups rated are men and women for gender; bisexual, homosexual, and heterosexual for sexual orientation; young, middle-aged, and older people for age; unemployed, manual workers, and professionals for occupation; people with low, average, and high income for income; people with high school degree, vocational degree, or university degree for education; left and right for political views; Christians, Muslims, and Atheists for religion; people with migration background and Germans with no migration background for migration background; Germans and Turks for ethnicity. The list of groups for each dimension is presented under each item after the BISI scale for that dimension. 14.6. Entitativity: “To what extent do you feel that categories of people based on the following characteristics qualify as groups?” with a list of ten dimensions and a 5-point response scale from “definitely not groups” to “definitely groups”. 14.7. Essentialism: “Some social groups are considered groups only because their members share some similar characteristics on the surface. For other groups, over and above their similarity of surface, group members share with one another deep underlying features or an “essence” that characterize them and differentiate them from members of other groups. To what extent do you feel that categories of people based on the following characteristics share a deep underlying reality or “essence”?”, with a list of ten dimensions and a 5-point response scale from “not at all” to “to a large extent”. 14.8. Identity centrality: “To what degree are the following characteristics important to your sense of who you are?” with a list of ten dimensions (e.g., ‘My gender’, ‘My age’) and a 6-point response scale from ‘Absolutely unimportant’ to ‘Extremely important'. 14.9. Identity integration is measured with the 7-item Generalized Identity Integration scale (GII; Huff et al., 2017). Turkish-German participants will additionally fill out a short, 6-item version of the Bicultural Identity Integration scale (Huynh et al., 2018); we selected 3 items from each subscale (harmony and blendedness). 14.10. Contact. Contact opportunities: “How often in your daily life do you have opportunities to interact with people who are different from you in the following ways?” Actual contact: “How often in your daily life do you actually interact with people who are different from you in the following ways?” Contact quality: “When you do have interactions with the following groups of people, how pleasant or unpleasant, on average, are these interactions?” Each of these items is followed by a list of ten dimensions (e.g., “people of a different gender”, “people from a different ethnic/cultural group”). 14.11. Perceived discrimination. Individual discrimination: “Have you ever felt that you are treated negatively or with less respect than others because of your background? Please indicate for each group below how often you had this experience. I have been treated negatively or with less respect than others...” with a list of ten dimensions (e.g., ‘because of my gender’, ‘because of my age’) and a 5-point response scale from ‘Never’ to ‘All the time’. Group discrimination: “On average, how often do you think people in Germany who share the following characteristics with you are treated negatively or with less respect because of these characteristics?” with a list of ten dimensions (e.g., ‘people of my gender’, ‘people of my age’) and the same 5-point response scale as above. 14.12. Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is measured with the 12-item German version of the RWA scale (KSA-3) by (Beierlein et al., 2014). 14.13. Social dominance orientation (SDO) is measured with the 12-item scale, a German adaptation of (Pratto et al., 1994) scale by (Cohrs &amp; Asbrock, 2009). 14.14. Collective action. General willingness to engage in collective action is measured with the item from the World Values Survey: “Below are different forms of political action that people can take. Please indicate for each one, whether you have actually done any of these things, whether you might do it or would never, under any circumstances, do it.” Seven types of actions are listed (e.g., ‘signing a petition’). The response options are ‘have done’, ‘might do’, and ‘would never do’. The final, post-ESM questionnaire includes the same measures of subjective well-being, mental health, intergroup attitudes, identity centrality and integration, contact (opportunity, frequency, and quality), perceived discrimination, and collective action. In addition, we will ask participants: “Did you communicate with other people significantly more or less than usual in the past 2 weeks?” with the options ‘significantly more’, ‘about the same as average’, and ‘significantly less’. This measure is included to check whether the experience sampling period was representative of the participants’ interactions in daily life. 15. Measured ESM/time-variant variables (required) All ESM variables are measured at a notification level. The questionnaire starts with one general happiness item (“At the moment I feel…” on a 100-point scale from ‘Sad’ to ‘Happy’). Next, we ask “How many people, if any, did you interact with since the last notification? Count all face-to-face and online interactions that lasted more than 5 minutes”, with options ranging from 0 to &gt;10. If the participant reports 0 interactions, the following questions ask about the environment in which the participant has spent most of their time since the last signal. - Environment: In which environment did you spend most of the time? (Home, place of work/study, public space, not listed (specify)) - Identity salience: “In this environment, were you particularly aware of one or more of your group memberships? Is yes, which ones? (Select all that apply)”, with the list of ten dimensions + categories of “other” and “none”. - Perceived discrimination: “In this environment, did you feel like you were being treated negatively or with less respect because of one or more of your group memberships? (Select all that apply)”. Same categories as above are listed. If the participant selected one or more group memberships in response to this item, we follow up with: “You have indicated that you have been treated negatively or with less respect because of at least one of your group affiliations. For each of the following groups, please indicate how negative your experience in this environment was. Include only your experiences since the last notification.” The groups selected in the previous item are carried forward, with a 100-point slider from “not negative at all” to “extremely negative”. - Mood: “How would you describe your mood while you were in this environment?”, with a 100-point slider from “very negative” to “very positive”. - State self-esteem: “I felt satisfied with myself while I was in this environment”, with a 100-point slider from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”. If the participant reports 1 or more interactions, follow-up questions are asked. The participant is asked to report the most memorable interaction, if more than 1 interaction took place. Interaction: - “Did you already describe this person in one of the previous questionnaires?” Yes/no. If ‘No’, participant is asked whether it’s someone with whom they interact regularly, and if so, they are asked to give that person a nickname. If ‘Yes’, the participant is prompted to report the nickname previously given to that person. - “What is your relationship with this person?” with options family member/relative, romantic partner, friend, acquaintance, colleague, supervisor, stranger, other (please specify). This question is displayed only if the participant didn’t report that person before. - “Was this interaction online or in person?” with options ‘online chat (e.g., messaging)’, ‘online interaction outside of private messages’, ‘phone call’, ‘video call’, and ‘in person’. - “Was this interaction planned or spontaneous?” with options ‘planned’ and ‘spontaneous’. - “Who initiated the interaction?” with options ‘me’, ‘the other person’, ‘neither/don’t remember’. - “How long was the interaction?” with options ‘1-15 minutes’, ’16-30 minutes’, ’31-60 minutes’, ‘1-2 hours’, ‘2-3 hours’, ‘&gt;3 hours’. - “Was this interaction, overall, pleasant or unpleasant?” with a 100-point slider from ‘very unpleasant’ to ‘very pleasant’. The remaining 4 blocks measure perceptions of the interaction partner and respondent’s feelings during the interaction. The following 4 blocks are presented in a randomized order. Interaction partner description. Two open-ended questions measure spontaneous recall of interaction partner’s characteristics: “In which ways the person you interacted with was similar to you?” and “In which ways the person you interacted with was different from you?” These two questions are presented only in 20% of all signals. The following is a grouping task that identifies whether the participant and the interaction partner were in- or outgroup members on each of the dimensions. The instruction reads: “Below is a list of different characteristics that can be used to describe how similar or different from each other people are. If you and the person with whom you interacted belong to the same group on this characteristic (for example, both of you are women), drop it into the "Same" box. If you belong to different groups on this characteristic (for example, you are a woman and your interaction partner is a man), drop it into the "Different" box. If you have no information about the other person regarding that characteristic, leave it where it is” The instruction is followed by a list of ten categorization dimensions. Interaction partner evaluation. Perceived similarity (“Overall, how similar did you feel to this person?”), attitude (“How much did you like this person?”), and willingness to interact in the future (“How much would you like to interact with this person again?) are all measured with 100-point sliders, from ‘not at all’ to ‘very much’. Perceived warmth and competence of the interaction partner (during the interaction) are measured with four items on a 7-point bipolar scale adopted from (Abele et al., 2016): not at all friendly – very friendly (communion-warmth), not at all trustworthy – very trustworthy (communion-morality), not at all competent – very competent (agency-competence), and not at all confident – very confident (agency-assertiveness). Identity salience and perceived discrimination. The salience of own group memberships: “During this interaction, were you particularly aware of any of your own group memberships? Choose all that apply”, with a list of ten dimensions plus categories of ‘other’ and ‘none’. Perceived discrimination is measured with two items. First, we ask: “During this interaction, did you feel that you were treated negatively or with less respect because of any of your group memberships? Choose all that apply”, with the same list as above. The following question reads: “You said that you were treated negatively or with less respect because of at least one of your group memberships. For each group, please indicate how negative was this experience”, with the list of group memberships carried forwards from the responses to the previous question and a 100-point slider scale from ‘not negative at all’ to ‘extremely negative’. Feelings during the interaction. Finally, we measure participants’ mood and state self-esteem during and immediately after the interaction. Mood: “How would you describe your mood during and immediately after this interaction?” on a 100-point slider from ‘Very negative’ to ‘Very positive’. Self-esteem: “I felt good about myself during and immediately after this interaction” on a 100-point slider from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’ (adapted from Heatherton &amp; Polivy, 1991). 16. Open-ended questions (optional) See section 15. 17. Indices (optional) The following variables will be calculated as a mean of responses to all items of the scale, given the scale shows adequate reliability (α ≥ 0.6). If scale reliability is low (α &lt; 0.6), poorly performing items might be removed before calculating the mean. Intake/final questionnaires: right-wing authoritarianism (12 items), social dominance orientation (12 items), belief-indicativeness (3 items), status-indicativeness (3 items), subjective well-being (5 items), mental health (21 items; sub-scales of stress, anxiety, and depression – 7 items each), attitude (3 items), identity integration (7 items), bicultural identity integration (6 items; sub-scales of harmony and blendedness – 3 items each); collective action (7 items). ESM questionnaire: warmth (2 items), competence (2 items). Number of shared group memberships: the number of group memberships in the “similar” box of the ESM grouping task. Ingroup bias: the difference score between ingroup and outgroup evaluations in the intake (baseline bias or bias at T1) and the final questionnaire (bias at T2). In cases where two outgroups are evaluated, the average score of outgroup evaluations will be subtracted from the ingroup score. The table below presents the coding scheme for ingroup membership between the participant and the evaluated target groups. All other combinations will be considered outgroup evaluations. Dimension Ingroup coding Gender − ‘man’ &amp; men − ‘woman’ &amp; women Age − ‘young adult’ &amp; young people − ‘middle-aged’ &amp; middle-aged people − ‘older adult’ &amp; older people Occupation − ‘work in a job that requires a university degree’ or ‘student’ or ‘retired’ combined with ‘I had a job that required a university degree’ &amp; professionals − ‘work in a job that does not require a university degree’ or ‘retired’ combined with ‘I had a job that did not require a university degree’ &amp; manual workers − ‘unemployed’ or ‘retired’ combined with ‘I have never been in paid work’ &amp; unemployed Income − ‘lower than average’ &amp; people with low income − ‘about average’ &amp; people with average income − ‘higher than average’ &amp; people with high income Political ideology − ‘extreme left’, ‘left’, or ‘leaning left’ &amp; liberals − ‘extreme right’, ‘right’, or ‘leaning right’ &amp; conservatives Religion − ‘atheist or agnostic’ &amp; atheists − ‘Christian’ &amp; Christians − ‘Muslim’ &amp; Muslims Migration background − ‘I was born in Germany and have no immigration background’ &amp; German citizens with no migration background − ‘I immigrated to Germany from abroad’ or ‘I was born in Germany, but my family (parent/s or grandparent/s) immigrated to Germany from abroad’ &amp; People with migration background Ethnicity − ‘German’ combined with ‘none’ or ‘German’ to the second culture question &amp; Germans − ‘Turkish’ in response to first or second culture question &amp; Turks Education − ‘no formal degree’/’Hauptschulabschluss’ &amp; people with Hauptschulabschluss (lowest formal secondary degree in Germany) − ‘vocational school/vocational college/vocational training’ &amp; people with vocational training − ‘current undergraduate student’/’Bachelor’s degree’/’current graduate student’/’Master’s degree/diploma/state examination’/’PhD’ &amp; people with university degree Sexual orientation – ‘heterosexual’ &amp; heterosexual people – ‘homosexual’ &amp; homosexual people – ‘bisexual’ &amp; bisexual people Note. The first group membership in each case indicates participant’s response to the demographic question, the second group membership indicates the evaluated group. Frequency of spontaneous and prompted recall: spontaneous recall is the number of mentions of a group in the open-ended questions and prompted recall is the number of mentions of a group membership as similar or dissimilar in the grouping task. Recovery time: The number of minutes between a discriminatory event being reported and the variable of interest (mood, happiness, or self-esteem) reaching a value that is equal or exceeds the participant’s average score on that variable. If the variable of interest did not drop below average at the time of the reporting, the recovery time will be coded as 0. Salience of stigmatized group membership: a dichotomous variable indicating whether a participant reported to be particularly aware of a group membership that scored 3 (sometimes) or above on the perceived discrimination scale in the intake questionnaire. Belief-indicative and status-indicative groups: We will conduct a cluster analysis based on the BISI questionnaire and, in line with earlier findings (Grigoryan et al., 2022), expect to find three clusters of groups: belief-indicative (high BI, low SI), status-indicative (high SI, low BI), and neutral (low BI, low SI). The groups will be coded as belief-indicative and status-indicative accordingly. 18. Manipulated variables (optional) NA Analysis Plan 19. Statistical models (required) Below we describe statistical models that will be used to test each of the hypotheses. In all cases when the outcome variable is count data, we will use either Poisson or negative binomial regressions. The choice of the model will depend on the distribution of each outcome measure: if the variance will be roughly equal to the mean, we will use Poisson regression; if the variance will be significantly larger than the mean, we will use the negative binomial regression. In all cases when the outcome variable is continuous, we will assume normal Gaussian distribution. To test the multilevel regression models, we will use the lme4 package in R (Bates et al., 2015); to test the multilevel path models, we will use the lavaan package in R (Rosseel, 2012). 19.1. Intergroup contact and attitudes H1.1. The higher the number of shared group memberships between the participant and the interaction partner, the more similar the partner is perceived to be (a), the more positive the attitude towards the partner (b), and the more willingness to interact in the future (c). Multilevel regression models with signals nested in participants, where number of shared group memberships predicts similarity (model 1), attitude (model 2), and willingness to interact in the future (model 3). H1.2. The higher the participant is on right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), the stronger is the relationship between the number of shared group memberships with the partner and attitude towards the partner. Model 2 from H1.1 as the baseline, adding a cross-level interaction effect between RWA and SDO and the number of shared group memberships in predicting attitude. H1.3. The stronger the baseline ingroup bias on a dimension, the more frequently people interact with similar others on that dimension. Multilevel Poisson or negative binomial regression with dimensions nested in participants, where baseline ingroup bias on a dimension predicts the number of interactions where a group membership was shared. H1.4. The stronger the baseline ingroup bias on a dimension, the less frequently people interact with dissimilar others on that dimension. Multilevel Poisson or negative binomial regression with dimensions nested in participants, where baseline ingroup bias on a dimension predicts the number of interactions when a group membership was not shared. H1.5. The more frequently participants interact with dissimilar others on a dimension, the weaker is ingroup bias on that dimension at T2, controlling for ingroup bias on T1. Multilevel regression with dimensions nested in participants, where number of interactions when a group membership was not shared predicts ingroup bias at T2, controlling for bias at T1. H1.6. The more positive (a) the average attitude towards dissimilar interaction partners and (b) quality of these interactions, the stronger is the negative relationship between frequency of interactions and ingroup bias at T2, controlling for ingroup bias at T1. The model from H1.5 is the baseline, adding averaged attitude towards interaction partners and averaged positivity of interactions as moderators of the interaction frequency-bias link. H1.7. Frequency and quality of interactions with dissimilar others mediate the relationship between baseline frequency and quality of interactions and ingroup bias at T2, controlling for ingroup bias at T1. Multilevel path model with dimensions nested in participants, where baseline frequency and quality of interactions with dissimilar others predicts frequency and averaged positivity of interactions in the experience sampling period, which in turn predicts bias at T2, controlling for bias at T1. 19.2. Identity centrality and category salience H2.1. Identity centrality leads to a higher frequency of spontaneous recall of that group membership in descriptions of others. Multilevel Poisson or negative binomial regression with dimensions nested in participants, where baseline identity centrality predicts number of mentions of a group membership in open descriptions. H2.2. Identity centrality leads to a higher frequency of prompted recall of that group membership in descriptions of others. Same as in H2.1, only the outcome is the frequency of prompted recall. H2.3. The frequency of salience of a group membership in interactions leads to higher centrality of that group membership to identity. Multilevel regression with dimensions nested in participants, where number of times a group membership is listed as salient predicts identity centrality at T2. H2.4. The more central a group membership to the identity, the more positive are attitudes towards similar (vs. dissimilar) others on that dimension. 3-level multilevel model (participants/signals/dimensions), where shared group membership on each dimension predicts more positive attitudes, and identity centrality of a dimension moderates this relationship. H2.5. Bicultural identity integration among ethnic minorities buffers the negative impact of perceived discrimination on mental health. A series of multilevel models with signals nested in participants, where BII moderates the link between perceived discrimination and happiness, mood, and self-esteem. We expect that the immediate negative impact of perceived ethnic discrimination on mood, happiness, and self-esteem is weaker among participants with higher BII. We will test if this effect holds for religious discrimination and discrimination based on migration background. We will also test if BII moderates the link between frequency of discriminatory events and mental health indicators at T2 with an OLS regression. 19.3. Coping with discrimination H3.1. Perceived discrimination in interactions has an immediate negative impact on mood (a), happiness (b), and self-esteem (c). Multilevel models with signals nested in participants, where perceived discrimination predicts mood (model 1), happiness (model 2), and self-esteem (model 3). H3.2. The link between perceived discrimination and mood (a), happiness (b), and self-esteem (c) is stronger if discrimination occurred on a dimension central to identity. Same model as in H3.1, adding an interaction between perceived discrimination and the identity centrality score for the dimension on which discrimination occurred. If discrimination occurred on more than one dimension, the one where the negative experience was strongest will be selected. H3.3. The recovery of mood, happiness and self-esteem levels after a perceived discrimination event is slower if discrimination occurred on a dimension central to identity. We will first select a subset of the sample where a discriminatory event was reported. A multilevel model with signals nested in participants will predict recovery time of mood (model 1), happiness (model 2), and self-esteem (model 3) from identity centrality score of the dimension on which discrimination occurred. If discrimination occurred on more than one dimension, the one where the negative experience was strongest will be selected. See section 17 for the calculation of recovery time. H3.4. The frequency of salience of stigmatized group memberships in everyday interactions has a negative impact on life satisfaction (a) and mental health (b). OLS regression predicting life satisfaction (model 1) and mental health (model 2) at T2 from the number of times participants reported to be particularly aware of a stigmatized group membership in an interaction. See section 17 for the classification of identities as stigmatized. H3.5. The frequency of discriminatory events in everyday interactions has a negative impact on life satisfaction (a) and mental health (b). OLS regression predicting life satisfaction (model 1) and mental health (model 2) at T2 from the number of times participants reported to be treated negatively due to one or more of their group memberships. 19.4. Belief-indicative vs. status-indicative groups H4.1. Groups that are seen as more entitative and essentialized are seen as more belief-indicative (a), but not as more status-indicative (b). Multilevel path model with dimensions nested in participants, predicting BI and SI scores from entitativity and essentialism. H4.2. Baseline ingroup bias is stronger on belief-indicative than on status-indicative or neutral dimensions of categorization. A multilevel regression with dimensions nested in participants, predicting ingroup bias from group type. H4.3. Belief-indicativeness (BI), but not status-indicativeness (SI) of a dimension moderates the link between ingroup membership and attitude towards the partner. 3-level multilevel model (participant/signals/dimensions), where participant-level BI and SI scores on each dimension moderate the link between ingroup membership on that dimension and attitude towards the interaction partner. H4.4. More discrimination occurs on belief-indicative than on status-indicative dimensions. Multilevel Poisson or negative binomial regression with dimensions nested in participants, where group type predicts the number of times a participant reported being treated negatively because of a group membership. H4.5. Individuals high on right-wing authoritarianism spontaneously recall belief-indicative group memberships of the interaction partner more frequently than those low on right-wing authoritarianism. Poisson or negative binomial regression predicting the number of spontaneous mentions of belief-indicative groups from the RWA score. H4.6. Individuals high on social dominance orientation spontaneously recall status-indicative group memberships of the interaction partner more frequently than those low on social dominance orientation. Poisson or negative binomial regression predicting the number of spontaneous mentions of status-indicative groups from the SDO score. 20. Transformations (optional) The time varying continuous predictors will be centered around the individual means and the time invariant predictors will be centered around the grand mean before inclusion in the multilevel regression models. Categorical variables and outcome variables will not be transformed. 21. Inference criteria (optional) We will use p-values of &lt; .05 and confidence intervals that do not include 0 as inference criteria. 22. Data exclusion (optional) Participants that completed 42 or more of 56 signals will be included in the analysis. 23. Missing data (optional) Planned missing design will be used to reduce the length of the daily questionnaires. Participants will respond to fewer questions if there are no interactions to report or if they have already reported about a person in one of the previous questionnaires. Additionally, participants will only respond to the open-ended question in 20% of the signals. For all other missing values, a default listwise deletion will be used in regression models. 24. Exploratory analysis (optional) References Abele, A. E., Hauke, N., Peters, K., Louvet, E., Szymkow, A., &amp; Duan, Y. (2016). Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: Agency with competence and assertiveness-communion with warmth and morality. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810 Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., &amp; Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Beierlein, C., Asbrock, F., Kauff, M., &amp; Schmidt, P. (2014). Kurzskala Autoritarismus (KSA-3): Ein ökonomisches Messinstrument zur Erfassung dreier Subdimensionen autoritärer Einstellungen. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6102/zis228 Cohrs, C. J., &amp; Asbrock, F. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(2), 270–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.545 Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., &amp; Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035312-41 Green, P., &amp; Macleod, C. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504 Grigoryan, L., Jones, B. H., Cohrs, J. C., Boehnke, K., &amp; Easterbrook, M. J. (2022). Differentiating Between Belief-Indicative and Status-Indicative Groups Improves Predictions of Intergroup Attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221092852 Heatherton, T. F., &amp; Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 895–910. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.895 Henry, J. D., &amp; Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression anxiety stress scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466505X29657 Huff, S. T., Lee, F., &amp; Hong, Y. Y. (2017). Bicultural and Generalized Identity Integration Predicts Interpersonal Tolerance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(5), 644–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117701193 Huynh, Q., Benet-Martínez, V., &amp; Nguyen, A.-M. D. (2018). Measuring Variations in Bicultural Identity Across U.S. Ethnic and Generational Groups: Development and Validation of the Bicultural Identity Integration Scale–Version 2 (BIIS-2). Psychological Assessment, 30(12), 1581–1596. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000606.supp Janke, S., &amp; Glöckner-Rist, A. (2014). Deutsche Version der Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). https://doi.org/https://doi.org10.6102/zis147 Nilges, P., &amp; Essau, C. (2015). Die Depressions-Angst-Stress-Skalen: Der DASS – ein Screeningverfahren nicht nur für Schmerzpatienten. Der Schmerz, 29, 649–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00482-015-0019-z Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., &amp; Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741 Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02