Americans, and 59 Hong Kong Chinese. Based on the power analyses described above, our sample size of 176 participants had more than sufficient power. The sample was 65% female, and there were no significant cultural group differences in gender distribution, χ2 (2, N = 176) = 5.23, p = .07. As in Study 1, the pattern of results held when controlling for participant gender, and participant gender did not interact with cultural group for any of the variables of interest, so we removed this variable from the analyses reported below for parsimony. There was a significant cultural difference in age, F(2, 155) = 4.45, p = .01, partial 2 = .05: European Americans (M = 19.74, SE = .20) were younger than Asian Americans (M = 20.71, SE = .32), p = .02, 95% CI = [-1.81, -.12] and Hong Kong Chinese (M = 20.63, SE = .27), p = .06, 95% CI = [-1.81, .03], but Asian Americans and Hong Kong Chinese did not differ from each other, p = .98. Given this difference, we ran all the analyses for Study 2 controlling for age; however, because the pattern of results was the same as when we did not control for age, we dropped this variable from the analyses reported below. Stimuli Stimuli were the same as those used in Study 1, with one slight modification. The people in the images were more ethnically diverse, although the Chinese internship ad still featured an Asian focal person, and the U.S. internship ad still featured a European American focal person (see Supplementary Materials, Section A). Measures Ideal Conveyed Job Affect: The same measure was used as in Study 1. Aggregate scores were generated for HAP (excited, enthusiastic, energetic) and LAP (calm, peaceful, serene) items for the American and Chinese jobs.5 Across jobs, internal consistency estimates were moderate to high (ideal conveyed job HAP: .92 for European American, .92 for Asian American, .86 for
Participants were recruited for an online study on “Hiring Decisions,” and screened for ethnicity, employment, and age. Eligible participants were asked to imagine they were the hiring manager for a consumer resources internship described in the ad. Participants were then asked to think about their ideal applicant for the position. Afterwards, they completed measures of their ideal applicant, global ideal and actual affect, cultural orientation, and demographics. Study 3 Data Analysis and Results Do European Americans view ideal applicants as more HAP and less LAP than Hong Kong Chinese? (Hypothesis 1) We conducted a 3 [Cultural Group (European American, Asian American, Hong Kong Chinese)] X 2 [Ideal Applicant Affect (HAP, LAP)] repeated measures ANOVA; Cultural Group was treated as a between-subjects factor and Ideal Applicant Affect was treated as a factor. The main effects of Ideal Applicant Affect, F(1, 182) = .39, p = .53, partial 2 = .002 was not significant. There was a main effect of cultural group, F(2, 182) = 3.14, p = .046, partial 2 = .03, with European Americans (M = 3.80, SE = .07) ideally wanting to hire a positive applicant more than Hong Kong Chinese (M = 3.58, SE = .07), p = .02, 95% CI = [.04, .41], and Asian Americans falling in between the two groups (M = 3.61, SE = .08). As predicted, this was qualified by a Cultural Group by Ideal Applicant Affect interaction, F(2, 182) = 28.20, p < .001, partial 2 = .24. As shown in Figure 4, European Americans viewed the ideal applicant as more HAP (M = 4.02, SE = .08) than did Hong Kong Chinese (M = 3.33, SE = .08), p < .001, 95% CI = [.47, .92]. Asian Americans viewed the ideal applicant as more HAP (M = 3.68, SE = .10) than did Hong Kong Chinese, p = .01, 95% CI = [.10, .60], but as less HAP than European Americans, p = .01, 95% CI = [-.59, -.10]. In contrast, Hong Kong Chinese viewed the ideal applicant as more LAP (M = 3.82, SE = .08) than did