Week 7 and 8 discussion

Vol.:(0123456789)1 3

Race and Social Problems https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-022-09368-1

Social Class also Matters: The Effects of Social Class, Ethnicity, and their Interaction on Prejudice and Discrimination Toward Roma

Ana Urbiola1,2  · Marisol Navas1,2  · Cristina Carmona1  · Guillermo B. Willis3

Accepted: 8 May 2022 © The Author(s) 2022

Abstract One of the difficulties in social research has been to disentangle the effects of race/ethnicity from social class. In two experi- mental studies with samples of both students and general population (total N = 416), we analyzed the effect of social class, ethnicity and their interaction on prejudice and discrimination using experimental methods. Social class (High vs. Low) and ethnic group (Roma vs. Non-Roma) were manipulated through a cover story. Study 1 showed a main effect of social class, not of ethnicity, on prejudice and discrimination. In Study 2 the effect of social class was replicated, and the interaction effect was also significant for all dependent variables. Results show that negative effects of social class are higher among Roma than non-Roma. Pooled analyses corroborated these findings. Social class is a predictive factor, especially in interaction with ethnicity and should be considered for predicting and reducing prejudiced attitudes and intergroup behaviors fostering inequality.

Keywords Social class · Ethnicity · Prejudice · Roma

Prejudice and discrimination have unfavorable effects. Peo- ple who frequently experience these intergroup processes have greater psychological suffering, depression, health risk behaviors, and less satisfaction with life (Gibbons et al., 2014). In addition, they have less access to resources such as health care, employment opportunities, housing, or educa- tion (Stroebe et al., 2010).

In Europe, Roma people are the largest ethnic minor- ity group (estimated to 10–12 million people, Bernát & Messing, 2016) and are frequent targets of hate crimes and

discrimination in interpersonal and institutional contexts (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2016). However, the psychosocial literature on prejudice toward Roma is scarce (for some exceptions see Kende et al., 2020; Navas & Cuadrado, 2012; Urbiola et al., 2018).

Although in many countries the situation of this group has improved, the gap between Roma and non-Roma popula- tions still exists: Roma are systematically disadvantaged in housing, employment, education, health care, and life expec- tancy (Bojadjijeva, 2015); they are also the target of nega- tive stereotypes and emotions across countries (Kende et al., 2020). This is also the situation in Spain, where Roma is the main derogated group above other ethnocultural minority groups, such as immigrants (e.g., Navas & Cuadrado, 2012; for a socio-political contextualization in Spain see Maga- zzini & Piemontese, 2016).

This paper will examine to what extent prejudice and discrimination toward Roma in Spain are based on ethnic, social class categories or on an interaction between these variables (see Moore-Berg & Karpinski, 2019; Weeks & Lupfer, 2004 for related research questions about other minorities).

* Ana Urbiola [email protected]

Marisol Navas [email protected]

Cristina Carmona [email protected]

Guillermo B. Willis [email protected]

1 Department of Psychology, University of Almería, Almería, Spain

2 Center of Study of Migration and Intercultural Relations (CEMyRI), University of Almeria, Almería, Spain

3 Department of Social Psychology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

Race and Social Problems

1 3

Prejudice: Specific Stereotypes, Emotions, and Behaviors

Recent models on prejudice, such as the stereotype con- tent model (SCM; Fiske et al., 2002) and the BIAS Map (Cuddy et al., 2008) emphasize that prejudice is a construct composed by multiple factors and has specific and differ- ent characteristic for each target group. Prejudice includes evaluative responses (both subjectively negative and posi- tive). These responses can be cognitive (stereotypes), affec- tive (emotions), and behavioral (behavioral tendencies) and will vary depending on specific groups and contexts (e.g., Cuddy et al., 2007, 2008; Fiske et al., 2002).

SCM (Fiske et al., 2002) considers two stereotypical dimensions that dominate our social perception of others: warmth (e.g., kind, friendly) and competence (e.g., efficient, intelligent). According to this model, Roma are perceived to be low in both warmth and competence (Grigoryev et al., 2019), and they will elicit mainly negative emotions (Fiske et al., 2002). In line with more recent research (Brambilla et al., 2012; López-Rodríguez & Zagefka, 2015), in the present work, a stereotypical three-dimensional model— morality (e.g., honesty), sociability (e.g., kindness), and competence (e.g., efficiency)—will be used because of its greater complexity and better predictive validity (Brambilla & Leach, 2014).

On the other hand, the BIAS Map (Cuddy et al., 2008) provides a general structure about how stereotypes and emotions experienced toward other groups are related to behaviors toward them. These behaviors could include posi- tive and negative actions called in the model as behavioral tendencies of facilitation (e.g., to help, assist, collaborate), and behavioral tendencies of harm (e.g., to harm, threaten, ignore), respectively. According to BIAS Map, it is to be expected that the majority will manifest a less willingness to carry out behavioral tendencies of facilitation than of harm toward Roma.

Thus, understanding the specificity of stereotypical attri- butions, emotions, and behavioral tendencies, based on different group membership categories (e.g., gender, eth- nic group or, in this study, social class), or the interaction between them, is key for developing effective strategies to reduce inequality and achieve more positive intergroup atti- tudes (Velasco González et al., 2008).

An important way of categorizing and stereotyping peo- ple is social class (Durante & Fiske, 2017; Lott, 2010). This is particularly important in societies with a high economic inequality, in which the attribution of competence or agency to high-class members is greater (Moreno-Bella et al., 2019). In fact, Cuddy et al. (2009) showed that rich people are per- ceived to be highly competent and low in warmth, whereas poor people are perceived to be low in both dimensions.

The association in the work context of status related ste- reotypes and certain racial groups (job-based race–status associations) and its effects has also been tested. Dupree et al. (2020) demonstrated that White Americans with higher implicit associations of White with high status (and Black with low status) showed more hierarchy-maintaining atti- tudes, beliefs, and preferences. This included higher preju- dice, social dominance orientation, meritocracy, as well as policy preferences that support inequality.

Previous literature has studied with qualitative methods the influence of ethnicity and social class (among other cat- egories) on discrimination experiences of Roma (e.g., Hell- gren & Gabrielli, 2021; Kóczé, 2009). The present work will contribute to this field of research by analyzing with quan- titative methods for the first time the effects of social class and ethnicity, separately as well as in intersection, on preju- dice toward Roma. For this aim we will consider stereotypes (morality, sociability, and competence), emotions (positive and negative), and behavioral tendencies (facilitation, harm, and social distance). We will also measure job discrimina- tion with explicit measures of intergroup relations.

Is it Racism or Classism?

One of the main difficulties that social scientists have is disentangling the effects of race/ethnicity1 from the effects of class, especially considering that in many countries eth- nic minorities are disproportionately found in the lower economic strata (Dupree et al., 2020). Thus, an important research question is to examine whether some instances of racism or ethnic prejudice can be merely vestiges of class- related processes, or consider that it could be an interactive effect between class and ethnicity.

Ethnicity represents, beyond phenotypic and genotypic associated characteristics, what people have learned about traditions and customs of their communities of origin. An ethnic group is associated with special experiences in lan- guage, music, history, literature, food, and celebrations considered to be similar to that of others with a shared background.

Social class—also called socioeconomic status in the lit- erature (SES)—implies the material and social resources that an individual has, such as income, educational attainment, and occupational prestige (Kraus & Stephens, 2012). Wright (2009) defined the term class as the way of considering the

1 We would like to clarify that we are conscious that race and eth- nicity are not interchangeable terms, since race has been related basically with biological determinant factors and it is not empiri- cally demonstrated. Ethnicity recognizes differences between people mostly on the basis of language and shared culture (see Lott, 2010).

Race and Social Problems

1 3

interconnections between the individual attributes of people (e.g., education, cultural resources, or social connections) and the material conditions of life. When the two comes together, they create groupings called classes. For example, the so-called lower class is made up of people who do not have the educational or cultural resources to live above the poverty line (Wright, 2009). Importantly, Easterbrook et al. (2020) showed that people place a high importance on their SES identities, participants attached at least as much impor- tance to their SES identities as they did to more traditional identities, such as ethnicity or gender.

Despite the fact that prejudice has been classically studied in relation to ethnic or gender group categories, people from the lower class is one of the groups that is more discrimi- nated against. This has been called aporophobia by Cortina (2017), highlighting the idea that as it happens with homo- phobia or islamophobia, social class membership is crucial for understanding intergroup relations.

Social class is associated with access to the most basic resources, such as food, medical care, shelter, and education (Lott, 2010). As Lott (2012) argues:

Membership in a given social class (a) reliably pre- dicts the degree to which one can obtain and benefit from a society’s economic and political resources, (b) is correlated with a wide array of life experiences, and (c) mediates and influences what a person is likely to learn, believe, anticipate, and seek after (p. 650).

Despite the fact that most research has focused on how singular social categories (e.g., race or social class) influ- ence intergroup processes, some exceptions have consid- ered the relevance of studying both categories or/and their potential intersection (e.g., Dupree et al., 2020; Mezzadra, 2021; Weeks & Lupfer, 2004). When trying to disentangle the joint effects of class and race categories on prejudice and discrimination, or its conjunction, there have been three main perspectives (Weeks & Lupfer, 2004).

First, it has been argued that it is race (or ethnicity) that has a stronger influence on prejudice (e.g., Pettigrew, 1980). Pettigrew (1980) showed that social class was increasing its influence on Blacks’ lives during the mid-1900s, but race continued to be an important factor above and beyond social class. This position is also supported by the ethnic-promi- nence hypothesis (Levin et al. 2002).

Second, other authors maintain that intergroup conflicts are mainly a class issue (e.g., Wilson, 1978). For example, Bayton et al. (1976) investigated the stereotypes associated with upper- and lower-class Blacks and Whites. They found that the stereotypes were a consequence of social class and not of the racial category. For example, the stereotypes typi- cally associated with Blacks (e.g., lazy, unreliable, ignorant) were the most indicative of lower-class targets, for both black and white.

Thirdly, there are authors arguing that what is really hap- pening is an interaction effect between the two categories (i.e., a Race/Ethnicity × Class). From this perspective, Kes- sler and Neighbors (1986) showed that the effects of race and social class on an individual’s psychological distress were not additive but interactive—race differences became more pronounced among lower-class individuals. Simi- larly, Weeks and Lupfer (2004) in two experimental studies showed that during spontaneous categorization of targets, race dominates categorization in stereotype-consistent race‐ class associations (i.e., Black people from the lower class), but class influences categorization in stereotype‐inconsist- ent race‐class associations (i.e., middle class Blacks). Their results illustrate the importance of social class membership as a social category, independently but also in conjunction with race.

Overview of Studies

The general objective of the present research is to analyze the effect of social class and ethnicity on intergroup pro- cesses, such as prejudice and discrimination from the major- ity society toward Roma. We also aim to disentangle the predictive effect of class membership from the classic estab- lished predictive effect of ethnic membership and explore the intersection of both factors.

In Study 1, we began investigating our most basic ques- tion: Analyzing the effects of social class and ethnicity on prejudice and discrimination among a sample of undergradu- ate students. In Study 2, based on the obtained results in Study 1 showing a main effect of social class, we prereg- istered the hypotheses of the effects of social class in all dependent variables separately, conducted the study with a bigger sample of non-Roma general population in Spain, and explore the interaction effect between both independ- ent variables. Finally, having confirmed that social class has a main effect on stereotypes, emotions and discrimina- tion measures, and due to the fact that we found an interac- tion effect in Study 2, an integrative analysis with the two samples was conducted in order to confirm the interaction effect of ethnicity and social class among a sample with a bigger size. These studies analyze for the first time the effects of social class and ethnicity, separately as well as in intersection, on prejudice toward Roma considering the evaluation of stereotypes, emotions, and behavioral tenden- cies of discrimination.

Supplementary materials (Online Resources) and data- bases can be viewed on the OSF link: https:// osf. io/ jge6c/? view_ only= 34b1f a15d4 d4471 381cd 46c7e 5ddb0 f2.

Race and Social Problems

1 3

Study 1

Method

Participants and Design

A power analysis using G*Power 3.1 for an F test (ANOVA for fixed effects, special, main effects and interactions) showed that for obtaining a medium effect size (f = .25), with an alpha of 0.05 and power of .80, we would require 128 participants. We, therefore, established to collect a minimum of 130 and maximum of 150 observations after exclusions (1 participant was excluded for being Roma). One hundred and thirty-four (74% female) non-Roma university students voluntarily participated. They were residents in a city in the south of Spain with a high presence of Roma popula- tion. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 53 years (M = 20.38; SD = 4.12). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions with a between sub- jects design of 2 (High vs. Low social class) × 2 (Ethnicity: Roma vs. Non-Roma), with 67 participants in each social class and 67 in each ethnic group condition.

Procedure and Instruments

The questionnaires, in paper and pencil format, were answered individually by the participants during approxi- mately 20 min. Before starting the questionnaire, partici- pants were informed about different aspects of the research: objectives, responsible people, voluntary participation, and the possibility of stopping at any time. Likewise, they were informed that the data obtained would be treated anony- mously, confidentially, globally, and statistically. All of them signed an informed consent and received an extra grade in one of their courses. The study was approved by the Human Research Bioethics Committee of the researchers’ university.

Participants were randomly assigned to answer one of four types of questionnaires depending on the experimental condition. In all versions of the questionnaire a text was presented and subsequently the scales to measure the vari- ables. Participants were told that information would be pre- sented about a representative person of one profile (i.e., from a group of people with these characteristics) (These profiles can be seen in the supplementary materials at the Open Sci- ence Framework link), and then they would have to answer some questions related to it. This profile was supposedly extracted from results obtained in the CIS (National Centre of Sociological Research in Spain) surveys. Since Kraus and Stephen (2012) theoretically and empirically supported that educational attainment, income, and occupation represent the most widely used indices of objective social class, those

three were used on the target profiles presented in the cover story in order to manipulate social class (High vs. Low). Eth- nicity was directly mentioned and the surname of the person (representative of Roma vs. Non-Roma) was also presented in order to manipulate ethnicity. Then, participants answered the following measures of the variables:

Manipulation Check In order to evaluate the target’s per- ceived social class, participants had to place the person described in the profile on one of the steps of a ladder (from 1 = The lowest social class; to 10 = The upper social class) (Kraus et  al., 2009). We did not include a manipulation check of ethnicity because the ethnicity was explicitly men- tioned in the profile presented to participants.

Stereotypes A 9-item scale was used (López-Rodríguez et  al., 2013), measuring three stereotypical dimensions (morality, sociability, and competence). Participants indi- cated to what extent they believed that people like those described in the profile were: honest, sincere and trust- worthy (morality dimension), pleasant, friendly and warm (sociability dimension), intelligent, skilful and competent (competence dimension). The answer scale ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Average scores were calcu- lated, ranging from 1 to 5, with high scores on each sub- scale indicating a more positive stereotype. The reliability was estimated using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient: .87 (for morality), .83 (sociability), and .83 (competence).

Intergroup Emotions This variable was measured using a 24-item scale (Cuadrado et al., 2016). Participants were asked to indicate to what extent they felt the following emo- tions toward people like those described in the profile. Ten items measured positive emotions (e.g., admiration, under- standing; α = .83), and 14 items measured negative emo- tions (e.g., disappointment, fear; α = .85). The answer scale ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Average scores were calculated, ranging from 1 to 5, with high scores on each subscale indicating higher intensity of emotions (posi- tive or negative).

Behavioral Tendencies This variable was measured with the 11-item Intergroup Behavioral Tendencies Scale (López- Rodríguez et  al., 2016), based on the BIAS Map (Cuddy et  al., 2008). Participants indicated to what extent they would be willing to carry out diverse actions toward peo- ple like those described in the profile. Five items measured facilitation tendencies (e.g., facilitating their promotion at work, α = .85), and six items measured harm tendencies (e.g., use derogatory nicknames to refer to them; α = .65). The answer scale ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Average scores were calculated, ranging from 1 to 5, with

Race and Social Problems

1 3

high scores on each subscale indicating a greater tendency toward facilitation or harm.

Preferred Social Distance This variable was measured with a 5-item scale (adapted from Betancor et al., 2002). Partici- pants indicated, “If you could choose, how far would you be willing to go in your relationship with people like those described in the profile?” Five items indicated different degrees of social distance or preferred intimacy in the rela- tionship (from “starting a family” to “have them as neigh- bors”). The answer scale for each item ranged from 1 (not at all willing) to 5 (very willing). Item 5 (“I prefer not to have a relationship with one of those people features”) was elimi- nated from the analyses because the alpha went from .59 to .85, excluding it. Average scores were calculated (ranging from 1 to 5), with higher scores indicating a preference for maintaining closer relationships or less social distance with the target (α = .85).

Recommendation for  a  Job This variable was measured with a single item: “To what extent would you recommend people like those described in the profile for a job?”. The answer scale ranged from 1 (I would not recommend them at all) to 5 (I would totally recommend them).

Socio‑Demographic Variables Participants indicated age, sex, place of birth, social class, belonging to the Roma group (Yes / No), mother's second surname, and date of birth.2

Data Analyses

In addition to alpha coefficients and descriptive analyses of the studied variables, correlations and analyses of variance were carried out. Analyses of variance (ANOVAS) were conducted in order to confirm that the manipulations were effective. Main and interaction effects were conducted with an F test of variance using SPSS 20.

Results

The results of the manipulation check showed that partici- pants who read the low-class profile attributed significantly lower social class (M = 2.51; SD = 1.02) to the person of the profile in comparison with participants assigned to the high- class condition (M = 8.15; SD = 1.45), F (1, 132) = 676.05, p < .001, η2

p = .838. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between

variables are presented in Online Resource 1 at the OSF link indicated previously. We found statistically significant cor- relations in the expected direction between all the dependent variables. Thus, the cognitive (stereotypical dimensions), affective (positive and negative emotions), and behavioral (behavioral tendencies, social distance and recommendation for a job) scales used to measure explicit intergroup atti- tudes, were significantly correlated in the expected direction.

As a result of the ANOVAS, the results of main effects of the manipulations of ethnicity and social class showed a sig- nificant effect of social class on almost all of the dependent variables (see Table 1). As expected, participants assigned to the experimental condition of low (vs. high) social class showed lower stereotypical perceptions of competence (Mlow = 3.10, SDlow = 0.95; Mhigh = 4.10, SDhigh = 0.73), less positive emotions (Mlow = 2.90, SDlow = 0.78; Mhigh = 3.52, SDhigh = 0.73), greater negative emotions (Mlow = 1.84, SDlow = 0.50; Mhigh = 1.49, SDhigh = 0.52), less willingness to help the target (Mlow = 3.04, SDlow = 0.80; Mhigh = 3.44, SDhigh = 0.86), greater tendency to harm the target (Mlow = 1.57, SDlow = 0.48; Mhigh = 1.30, SDhigh = 0.41), and

Table 1 Effect of social class and ethnicity in all dependent variables

Variables Class effect Ethnicity effect

F p η2 p F p η2

p

1. Stereot. morality 2.83 .095 .022 1.24 .267 .010 2. Stereot. sociability 0.78 .378 .006 2.73 .100 .021 3. Stereot. competence 45.71 < .001 .263 0.70 .402 .005 4. Positive emotions 24.95 < .001 .163 0.48 .490 .004 5. Negative emotions 16.90 < .001 .117 6.01 .016 .045 6. Behavioral tend. facilitation 7.91 .006 .058 0.06 .800 .001 7. Behavioral tend. harm 11.60 .001 .083 1.71 .193 .013 8. Social distance 61.50 < .001 .325 1.60 .208 .012 9. Recommendation for a job 87.03 < .001 .405 0.02 .894 .000

2 The paper format version of the Implicit Association Test (IAT, Lemm et  al., 2008), using the stimuli of the adapted version to assess prejudice toward Roma community with a classic IAT and the Perceived Out-group Threat Scale (Navas et al., 2012) were also included in the questionnaire with exploratory purposes but not included in the main analyses.

Race and Social Problems

1 3

they would prefer to maintain a greater social distance with the target (Mlow = 2.95, SDlow = 0.81; Mhigh = 4.02, SDhigh = 0.75) and would be less likely to recommend the target for a job (Mlow = 2.73, SDlow = 1.09; Mhigh = 4.27, SDhigh = 0.78). We did not find statistically significant differ- ences between participants of the condition of low (vs. high) social class in the stereotypical perceptions of the target’s morality and sociability.

A main effect of the manipulation of ethnicity was only significant on negative emotions, F (1,132) = 6.01, p = .016, η2

p = .045, in which participants showed less negative emo- tions toward Roma (M = 1.56, SD = 0.49) than toward non- Roma targets (M = 1.77, SD = 0.56). No effect was found in any of the dimensions of stereotypes, in positive emotions, behavioral tendencies, social distance, or recommendation for a job.

The interaction between the two independent variables was not significant for any dependent variable (ps ≥ .300), with the exception of behavioral tendencies of facilitation, F (1, 132) = 4.20, p = .042, η2

p = .032. Participants assigned to the low-class Roma condition show the least willing- ness to help (M = 2.98, SD = 0.79), whereas the participants assigned to the high–class Roma condition showed higher scores on facilitation (M = 3.68, SD = 0.90).3

Discussion

This study aimed to analyze the effect of social class and ethnicity of Roma (the main derogated group in Spain) on prejudice and discrimination from the majority society toward this minority group.

As in some previous studies, results showed that social class had stronger effects than ethnic membership (Wilson, 1978). So, to perceive others as having low (vs. high) social class influences more than their ethnicity (Roma vs. Non- Roma) in how people stereotype them, feel about them, and behave toward them. In our study, low (vs. high) social class influenced target perceptions (less competent stereotype), emotions (eliciting less positive and more negative emo- tions), and behaviors toward the target (less willingness to help and more willingness to harm, greater preferred social distance, and less recommendation for a job). However, to perceive others as Roma vs. Non-Roma (ethnicity) only had an influence on more negative emotions. Finally, the inter- action effect between class and ethnicity (e.g., Kessler & Neighbors, 1986; Weeks & Lupfer, 2004) was not supported in this study, except on one behavioral variable— tendency

to help. However, a possible limitation of this study was that the sample size may not be sufficiently powered to detect an interaction effect.

According to the SCM (Fiske et al., 2002) and its exten- sions (Brambilla et al., 2012), we could expect that the low (vs. high) social class target would be perceived as stereo- typically less competent but also less warmth (i.e., less moral and sociable). Predictions about competence were confirmed in our study, but we have found no difference in attributions of morality and sociability. Moreover, in line with the prediction that would be associated to the SCM in relation to social class, the present results support that low social class people are targets of more negative emo- tions (and less positive emotions) as well as more negative behavioral tendencies.

The SCM extensions (i.e., tri-dimensional stereotypical model) have never been applied to assess Roma targets in Spain; although, they have been applied to other devalued minority ethnocultural groups such as immigrants (e.g., López-Rodríguez et al., 2013). The results of those stud- ies show variability in stereotypical dimensions (morality, sociability, and competence), depending on the immigrants’ background. In our study, however, ethnicity (Roma vs. Non- Roma) had no effect on any of the stereotypical dimensions.

In order to deepen understanding regarding the predictive power of social class membership and to analyze whether this main effect was replicated, we carried out a new pre- registered experimental study with a greater sample size and composed of the general population and not just of under- graduate students.

Study 2

The main hypotheses, based on the results of the previous study, were preregistered in the Open Science Framework, OSF (See https:// osf. io/ jge6c/? view_ only= 34b1f a15d4 d4471 381cd 46c7e 5ddb0 f2), and were the following:

Participants assigned to the low-class experimental condi- tion will show lower scores on the competence dimension of stereotypes toward the target group than those assigned to the high-class experimental condition (Hypothesis 1).

Participants assigned to the low-class experimental con- dition will show more negative emotions toward the target group (H2) and less positive emotions toward the target group (H3) than those assigned to the high-class experi- mental condition.

Participants assigned to the low-class experimental condition will show more negative behavioral tendencies (lower facilitation and higher harm) toward the target group (H4), will recommend target group members less often for a job (H5), and will show a greater social distance toward

3 When participants’ gender and social class are included as covari- ates on the ANOVA analyses, the significant main effects remain on the same dependent variables. The interaction effect on facilitation becomes marginal, F (1, 125) = 3.89, p = .051, η2

p = .030.

Race and Social Problems

1 3

the target group (H6) than those assigned to the high-class experimental condition.

In addition, we explored the interaction effects of Ethnic- ity × Class in all dependent variables with a larger sample size.

Method

The sample size was determined by the criterion of collect- ing at least 256 participants (64 participants per condition, estimating a power of .80 and an effect size of d = 0.50).

The sample was collected in a simple random way through online questionnaires on social networks (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram) due to the state of confinement in Spain in 2020–2021 derived from the pandemic. In this way, people who agreed to participate in the study were only aware that it was a study about social perceptions. Participants who did not pass the pre-established criteria—i.e., those who did not exceed more than 50% of the survey or who were Roma (only 1 participant was Roma) were excluded from the analyses. The final sample was composed of 282 par- ticipants from the general population (60.2% women), with ages between 18 and 72 years (M = 30.5, SD = 12.4). The level of studies of the participants consisted of 5.1% with primary education, 10.7% with secondary education, 16.7% with a baccalaureate level, 50% with a university degree or bachelor's degree, 15.8% with a master's level degree, and 1.7% with a doctorate or higher.

In relation to the employment situation of the partici- pants, 17.1% were self-employed, 23.1% worked with a fixed contract, 14.1% worked with a temporary contract, 33.8% were students, 0.4% were retired, and 11.5% were unemployed.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions with a design between subjects 2 (High vs. Low social class) × 2 (Ethnicity: Roma vs. Non- Roma). In this study, we made sure to have more than 64 participants in each of the four conditions before conducting the main analyses.

Procedure, instruments,4 and data analysis were the same as in Study 1.

The reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) and descriptive statistics of the measures are presented in Online Resource 2 at the OSF link.

Results

Firstly, the manipulation check showed that participants assigned to the low-class condition significantly attributed a lower social class to such a profile (M = 3.07; SD = 1.67) than participants assigned to the high social class condi- tion (M = 7.17; SD = 2.03), F (1, 281) = 345.52, p <.001, η2

p = .552.

Bivariate Correlations

The results of correlational analyses between dependent var- iables are presented in Online Resource 3 at the OSF link. We found statistically significant correlations in the expected direction between all the dependent variables.

Table 2 Effects of social class, ethnicity, and interaction of class × ethnicity (Study 2)

Class effect Ethnicity effect Interaction

Variable F p η2 p F p η2

p F p η2 p

Stereot. morality 0.36 .548 .001 7.47 .007 .028 15.13 < .001 .056 Stereot. sociability 0.69 .404 .003 15.41 < .001 .057 17.02 < .001 .062 Stereot. competence 13.88 < .001 .051 5.91 .016 .022 4.64 .032 .018 Positive emotions 6.14 .014 .023 3.03 .083 .012 14.98 < .001 .055 Negative emotions 18.44 < .001 .067 0.11 .735 < .001 9.21 .003 .035 Behavioral tend. facilitation 0.38 .535 .002 5.56 .019 .021 10.35 .001 .039 Behavioral tend. harm 2.05 .153 .008 0.49 .485 .002 6.21 .013 .024 Social distance 14.82 < .001 .055 0.00 .990 < .001 11.77 .001 .044 Recommendation for a job 32.42 < .001 .110 2.59 .109 .010 6.77 .010 .026

4 Social dominance orientation (SDO, Pratto et  al., 2013) and two dimensions of class consciousness (Keefer et  al., 2015) were also measured. However, their estimated reliability was not high, so these measures were not included in the following analyses (SDO α = .47; class identification α = .63).

Race and Social Problems

1 3

Effects of Social Class, Ethnicity and Interaction of Class × Ethnicity

As preregistered, we conducted ANOVA analyses and the results showed a significant main effect of social class on almost all of the dependent variables (see Table 2), replicat- ing the effects of class obtained in Study 1. As expected, participants assigned to the experimental condition of low (vs. high) social class showed lower stereotypical percep- tions of competence (H1), more negative emotions (H2), and less positive emotions (H3); they would recommend the target less often for a job (H5) and would prefer to maintain a greater social distance with the target (H6). We did not find statistically significant differences between participants of the condition of low (vs. high) social class in the stereotypi- cal perception of the target's morality and sociability and in behavioral tendencies of facilitation and harm.

Additionally, we found a significant interaction effect of Class × Ethnicity in all the dependent variables (see Table 2) which we consider an important contribution to the field of prejudice.5

In the post hoc pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni), according to the ethnicity condition, it can be seen as in the case of Roma targets, class differences have a greater weight than that of non-Roma targets on most dependent variables (see Table 3 and Fig. 1), with the exceptions of ste- reotypes of morality and sociability as well as the behavioral tendency of facilitation in which, although the direction is opposed for Roma and non-Roma, the weight is higher for non-Roma targets.

Discussion

The hypotheses based on the main effect of social class were mainly confirmed, since there were significant differences in attribution of competence stereotypes, positive and nega- tive emotions, social distance, and recommendation for a job, thus, confirming Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. However, Hypothesis 4 was not corroborated, which predicted effects on facilitation and harm behaviors. These results replicated the importance of social class when evaluating Roma.

According to the SCM (Fiske et al., 2002) and BIAS Map (Cuddy et al., 2008), predictions about competence and emo- tions were confirmed in our study (a low-class target was perceived as less competent, and elicited more negative emotions and less positive emotions), but we have found no difference in attributions of morality and sociability or in behavioral tendencies of facilitation and harm.

Importantly, in this study we found an interaction effect between the ethnic category and the social class of the target,

Table 3 Effects of social class for Roma and non-Roma targets in all dependent variables

Dependent variables Ethnicity (I) Social class (J) Social class Mean differ- ences (I-J)

Standard error Sig

Stereot. morality Roma Low High −.317* .135 .020 Non-Roma Low High .433* .137 .002

Stereot. sociability Roma Low High −.309* .132 .020 Non-Roma Low High .466* .134 .001

Stereot. competence Roma Low High −.497* .118 < .001 Non-Roma Low High −.133 .120 .272

Positive emotions Roma Low High −.604* .133 < .001 Non-Roma Low High .132 .136 .330

Negative emotions Roma Low High .458* .088 < .001 Non-Roma Low High .079 .089 .378

Behavioral tendency of facilitation Roma Low High −.286 .154 .065 Non-Roma Low High .423* .157 .008

Behavioral tendency of harm Roma Low High .382* .136 .006 Non-Roma Low High −.103 .139 .458

Social distance Roma Low High −.935* .180 < .001 Non-Roma Low High −.054 .183 .769

Recommendation for a job Roma Low High −1.032* .175 < .001 Non-Roma Low High −.381* .179 .034

5 When participants’ gender, level of studies and social class are included as covariates on the ANOVA analyses, the significant main and interaction effects remain on the same dependent variables with the exception that the main effect of ethnicity on stereotypes of morality (F (1, 227) = 3.39, p = .067, η2

p = .015) and on facilitation (F (1, 227) = 1.77, p = .184, η2

p = .008) becomes marginal or not signifi- cant.

Race and Social Problems

1 3

Fig. 1 Mean scores on depend- ent variables by experimental condition (Study 2)

Race and Social Problems

1 3

supporting the literature that defend the importance of the interaction between class and ethnicity (Kessler & Neigh- bors, 1986; Weeks & Lupfer, 2004). These results suggest that both variables may act in conjunction in an interactive process—and not in an isolated or additive form.

In short, results showed that the effects of social class were stronger for Roma targets than for non-Roma targets. Put differently, belonging to a low social class had more costs for the Roma than for the ethnic majority group (non- Roma). This pattern showed up in the most blatant meas- ures of prejudice and discrimination: more negative emo- tions (and less positive), more harm tendencies, more social distance, and less recommendations for a job. As observed in Table 3 and Fig. 1, whereas Roma of lower class are negatively evaluated and more discriminated than any other group, Roma of higher class are positively evaluated. This happens more for Roma than for non-Roma targets of higher class. This pattern was found for the stereotype of compe- tence, but it was not for morality and sociability; in this case, social class was more important for non-Roma than for Roma people. The same happened for behavioral tendencies of facilitation.

To obtain a greater statistical power for testing the inter- action effect of Class × Ethnicity, we analyzed both samples together using a pooled data analysis (i.e., an integrative data analysis; Curran & Hussong, 2009). So, we examined whether these effects are replicated.

Integrative Data Analyses

Whereas the results of Studies 1 and 2 are highly symmet- rical, replicating a main effect of social class in most of dependent variables, there was some discrepancy between the results on the interaction effect: it was not significant in Study 1, whereas it was significant for all dependent vari- ables in Study 2 as well as some differences on the main effect of ethnicity. For this reason, to test the interaction of class and ethnicity and to clarify the potential discrepancies

considering all the data, we conducted an integrative data analysis (Curran & Hussong, 2009). This procedure allowed us to increase the statistical power for conducting analy- ses of the 2 × 2 interaction as well as sample heterogeneity. We pooled the samples from the two studies into a single multivariate analysis of variance to confirm main and inter- action effects. The total sample included 416 participants (N1 = 134; N2 = 282).

The multivariate analyses of variance with ethnicity condition (Roma vs. Non-Roma), class condition (Low vs. High), and Study (1 vs. 2) as fixed factors showed that the triple interaction (Ethnicity × Class × Study) was not signifi- cant for any dependent variable (ps between .070 and .860). Importantly, results corroborated the interaction between ethnicity and class for most of variables (see Table 4), since we found a significant interaction effect in almost all dependent variables, except for the competence stereotype and behavioral tendencies of facilitation, which were both predicted only by social class. To confirm a significant inter- action effect in almost all dependent variables in the pooled data supports the idea that the lack of significance in Study 1 could be due to the smaller sample size.

In the post hoc pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni) according to the ethnicity condition, it can be seen as in the case of Roma targets, class differences have a greater weight than that of non-Roma targets on most dependent variables (see Online Resource 4 and Fig. 2).

As in Study 2, the effect of class is higher for Roma tar- gets than for non-Roma targets, although mean differences are significant for both ethnic groups in many variables, the weight of class is more acute for Roma than for non-Roma. Participants assigned to the Roma high-class condition showed the most positive responses (attribution of positive stereotypes, more positive emotions, higher facilitation, lower harm, lower social distance, and more recommenda- tions for a job), and the participants assigned to the low-class Roma showed the lowest attribution of morality, less posi- tive emotions toward people like the one presented in the profile, the highest score of behavioral tendencies of harm,

Table 4 Between-subject effects of social class, ethnicity, and interaction of class × ethnicity (pooled data)

Class effect Ethnicity effect Interaction

Variables F p η2 p F p η2

p F p η2 p

Stereot. morality 1.04 .309 .003 6.62 .010 .017 8.26 .004 .021 Stereot. sociability 0.04 .837 .000 13.76 < .001 .035 10.23 .001 .026 Stereot. competence 55.31 < .001 .126 0.70 .405 .002 0.50 .482 .001 Positive emotions 28.79 < .001 .070 2.69 .102 .007 9.60 .002 .024 Negative emotions 33.19 < .001 .080 5.13 .024 .013 4.66 .032 .012 Behavioral tend. facilitation 12.85 < .001 .032 0.34 .560 .001 3.33 .069 .009 Behavioral tend. harm 3.29 .071 .008 6.20 .0.13 .016 12.84 .001 .032 Social distance 68.06 < .001 .151 0.77 .381 .002 6.67 .010 .017 Recommendation for a job 103.88 < .001 .213 0.65 .421 .002 4.52 .034 .012

Race and Social Problems

1 3

Fig. 2 Mean scores of depend- ent variables in pooled data (standardized scores)

Race and Social Problems

1 3

the highest social distance, and the lowest level of recom- mendation for a job (see Fig. 2).

General Discussion and Conclusions

The main objective of this work was to analyze the effect of social class and ethnicity of Roma on prejudice and discrimi- nation from the majority society toward this minority group.

One of the main difficulties that social scientists have is disentangling race/ethnicity from class, especially consider- ing that in many countries, ethnic minorities are found dis- proportionately in the lower economic strata. Using the defi- nition and indicators of social class provided by Kraus and Stephens (2012), the present work tries to answer research questions that need to be approached: to what extent are the examples that have been considered racism or ethnic preju- dice cited also based on class-related processes?

With this aim, two experimental studies with different samples were carried out in which ethnicity (Roma vs. Non- Roma) and social class (Low vs. High) were manipulated. The Roma minority was chosen as the target group because it is a traditionally discriminated against minority in Europe and the most discriminated against in Spain.

Three main perspectives have been considered in the literature to answer the question of disentangling ethnic/ racial prejudice from classism (Weeks & Lupfer, 2004): (1) some authors defend that it is race (or ethnicity) that mainly has influence in prejudice (e.g., Pettigrew, 1980); (2) some authors defend that social class has higher explicative capac- ity, contending that intergroup conflicts are many times due to a class issue more than to ethnic or racial membership (e.g., Wilson, 1978); (3) some authors defend that it is really an interaction between the two categories (race/ethnicity × social class) that matters (e.g., Kessler & Neighbors, 1986; Weeks & Lupfer, 2004).

The first perspective is not supported by our results. Although we found consistent effects of social class on Study 1, and this was then replicated in a preregistered experiment (Study 2), we considered that the interaction between class and ethnicity can better explain our pattern of results: Study 2 found a significant interaction effect for most variables, and this effect was replicated when using an integrative data analysis (Curran & Hussong, 2009).

The relevance of the interaction effects on prejudice lead us to discuss about the intersectional hypotheses of preju- dice and discrimination as well as to introduce the concept of intersectionality (for results supporting intersectionality in Social Psychology see Kessler & Neighbors, 1986; Mat- tan et al., 2019; Moore-Berg & Karpinski, 2019; Weeks & Lupfer, 2004). Intersectionality is a theoretical approach that simultaneously considers multiple categories of identity, such as gender, race, social class, sexual orientation, etc.

(Cole, 2009). This approach is originally based on critical race and feminist theories (Crenshaw, 1989), criticizing the tendency to consider some social categories, such as those based on race, to be homogeneous. In fact, members vary substantially on other relevant dimensions, such as social class and gender (see Moore-Berg & Karpinski, 2019, for a review of the effects of intersectionality in the psychological literature). Mattan et al. (2019) demonstrated a similar find- ing in basic experiments in implicit evaluative bias where participants were most sensitive to target SES, but also showed interactive effects by target’s race.

In short, our results show that perceiving a person (or group) with a low or high social class (i.e., indicated by socioeconomic level of neighborhood, education level, occu- pation, and income level), leads people to attribute them certain stereotypes, feel certain emotions, or be willing to carry out certain behaviors. This happens even more for eth- nic minorities.

As such, the effects of social class were more important for Roma individuals than for non-Roma in most variables. Specifically, low-class Roma (vs. high-class Roma) were perceived as less moral and sociable; people felt less positive and more negative emotions toward them; and they elicited greater behavioral tendencies of harm, greater social dis- tance, and were less often recommended for a job. All these social class effects did not occur, or were less strong, when comparing low- and high-class non-Roma individuals.

All in all, these results suggest that it is important to simultaneously consider multiple identity categories (Cole, 2009). Thus, if we want to examine the effects of social class on how people are evaluated, it is also important to consider their other group memberships. Previous studies have found that, when examining intergroup relations in the USA, “There is more to being a lower class black than sim- ply being black and lower class” (Weeks & Lupfer, 2004, p. 974), or in words of Crenshaw (1989) referring to black women:

Imagine a basement which contains all people who are disadvantaged on the basis of race, sex, class, sexual preference... These people are stacked-feet standing on shoulders-with those on the bottom being disad- vantaged by the full array of factors, up to the very top, where the heads of all those disadvantaged by a singular factor brush up against the ceiling. Their ceil- ing is actually the floor above which only those who are not disadvantaged in any way reside. In efforts to correct some aspects of domination, those above the ceiling admit from the basement only those who can say that “but for” the ceiling, they too would be in the upper room. A hatch is developed through which those placed immediately below can crawl… Those who are multiply-burdened are generally left below unless they

Race and Social Problems

1 3

can somehow pull themselves into the groups that are permitted to squeeze through the hatch. (pp. 151–152)

The present studies show that a similar pattern occurs when we examine different components or expressions of prejudice and discrimination toward lower-class Roma peo- ple in Spain.

However, the lingering questions are: what is the nature of this Ethnicity × Class interaction and what mechanisms may be driving it? Why might high-class Roma people be evaluated so positively and low-class Roma people be evalu- ated so negatively? One possible explanation for positive responses toward high-class Roma targets is that a process of subtyping is taking place. The motivation to maintain pres- ently held beliefs about ethnic groups often leads people to search for a justification that does not generate cognitive dis- sonance. One means of maintaining these beliefs is to sub- type by classifying the stereotype-disconfirming outgroup member as an “unusual case” or subtype of the larger group (Richards & Hewstone, 2001). Participants might consider Roma people pertaining to a high class as not representative of the outgroup, thus, not applying the negative representa- tion and affect that endorse toward the rest of the outgroup.

Another explanation, and in some way connected to the previous one, could be related to participants’ meritoc- racy beliefs. Meritocracy beliefs have a deep impact on the way people think about and act toward low-status groups (Madeira et al., 2019). Since Roma people occupying high privileged positions are perceived as uncommon, meritoc- racy beliefs could simultaneously explain the positive evalu- ations and behaviors toward high-class Roma—they individ- ually achieved a good socioeconomic position regardless the starting point of their group—and the negative evaluations and discrimination toward low-class Roma targets—they are in that situation because they don’t make enough effort for changing their reality—. Meritocracy is increasingly associ- ated with intolerance and dislike of members of low-status groups (Madeira et al., 2019), overrepresented by ethnic and racial minorities (Dupree et al., 2020).

This work presents some limitations. First of all, the sam- ple of Study 1 was small, and we may not have had enough power to detect the interaction effect. Despite the fact that the pooled analyses support the intersectionality perspective, it would be convenient to carry out new research with larger samples in relation to other minority groups (e.g., immi- grants or indigenous people).

Secondly, these results may also be related with what Cole (2009) refers as an intersectional conceptualization of multiple categories on psychosocial research, future stud- ies could look at presenting an underrepresented group per- spective defined by multiple social identities and to situate the intersection of ethnic and class identities in different

contexts, both through the priming manipulation and the cross-cultural approach. However, we are conscious that our methods did not allow us to conduct intersectional research and that observing a significant interaction effect of different social categories is a necessary, yet not sufficient, condition for intersectionality to occur (see Bowleg & Bauer, 2016). Future designs could incorporate other types of group-level population, environmental, and policy variables to advance understanding about social–structural power relations and their differential effects at varying intersections as well as use qualitative methods in addition to the quantitative methodology. However, these results are an essential start- ing point for putting attention to the intersectionality in psychological research for understanding prejudice toward minorities because compared with many disciplines, inter- sectionality remains relatively inchoate within psychology (Bowleg & Bauer, 2016).

Despite these limitations, we consider that this work makes important contributions to the field of prejudice and majority–minority intergroup relations. The old debate about Classism vs. Racism has tipped the research fundamentally in favor of racial or ethnic membership as determinants of prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviors. This has led to a neglect of the importance of social class as a social category with equal or even greater effects on intergroup prejudice. This also leads us to forget that ethnic or racial minorities are also often lower class.

Results obtained in our work support the importance of considering social class discourses in order to find resist- ance strategies and effective prejudice reduction interven- tions that take into consideration more than one membership at the same time. As such, it will important that interven- tions aimed to increase social class diversity also take into account race/ethnic membership. It will not be the same to participate in these programs when people are a member of an ethnic minority or not.

In conclusion, this paper presents two studies that con- sistently found that class is an important variable that influ- ence how Roma people are evaluated in Spain, especially in interaction with ethnicity. Considering the intersection of different categories of exclusion is useful for policy recom- mendations. Understanding how these groups are evaluated by the majority group is a first step for developing more inclusive and egalitarian programs and policies that could improve intergroup relations.

Funding Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE- CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. This study was funded by the European Union: Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme (Ref: 963122); Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain (PSI2016-78839-P).

Race and Social Problems

1 3

Data Availability Datasets and supplementary materials are available at Open Science Framework (OSF): https:// osf. io/ jge6c/? view_ only= 34b1f a15d4 d4471 381cd 46c7e 5ddb0 f2.

Declarations

Conflict of interest The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Informed Consent The study was approved by the Human Research Bioethics Committee of the researchers’ university and informed con- sent to participate in the study was obtained from participants.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.

References

Bayton, J. A., McAllister, L. B., & Hamer, J. (1976). Race-class stereotypes. Journal of Negro Education, 25, 75–78.

Bernát, A., & Messing, V. (2016). Methodological and data infra- structure report on Roma population in the EU. InGRID web- site. Retrieved from: https:// inclu siveg rowth. be/ proje ct- output/ proje ct- output# Proje ct% 20wor king% 20pap ers

Betancor, V., Quiles, M. N., Morera, D., Rodríguez, R., Rodríguez, A., Delgado, N., & Acosta, V. (2002). Creencias sobre las causas de la pobreza y su influencia sobre el prejuicio hacia los inmigrantes [Beliefs about the causes of poverty and its influ- ence on prejudice towards immigrants]. Revista De Psicología Social Aplicada, 12, 5–20.

Bojadjijeva, A. (2015). Roma inclusion index 2015. Retrieved from: https:// www. rcc. int/ romai ntegr ation 2020/ files/ user/ docs/ Roma% 20Inc lusion% 20Ind ex% 202015. pdf

Bowleg, L., & Bauer, G. (2016). Invited reflection: Quantifying inter- sectionality. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 337–341. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03616 84316 654282

Brambilla, M., & Leach, C. W. (2014). On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social Cognition, 32, 397–408. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1521/ soco. 2014. 32.4. 397

Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Rusconi, P., Cherubini, P., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2012). You want to give a good impression? Be hon- est! Moral traits dominate group impression formation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 149–166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 2044- 8309. 2010. 02011.x

Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0014 564

Cortina, A. (2017). Aporofobia, el rechazo al pobre: Un desafío para la democracia [Aporophobia, the rejection of the poor: A challenge for democracy]. Paidós.

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist policies. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1, 139–167.

Cuadrado, I., López-Rodríguez, L., & Navas, M. S. (2016). La per- spectiva de la minoría: Estereotipos y emociones entre grupos inmigrantes [The minority’s perspective: Stereotypes and emo- tions between immigrant groups]. Anales De Psicología, 32, 535–544. https:// doi. org/ 10. 6018/ anale sps. 32.2. 205341

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS Map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 92(4), 631–648. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 3514. 92.4. 631

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.-P., Bond, M. H., Croizet, J. C., Ellemers, N., Slee- bos, E., Htun, T. T., Kim, H. J., Mario, G., Perry, J., Petkova, K., Todorov, V., Rodríguez Bailón, R., Morales, E., & Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 1–33. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1348/ 01446 6608X 314935

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & y Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 61–149). Academic Press.

Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81–100. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0015 914

Dupree, C. H., Torrez, B., Obioha, O., & Fiske, S. T. (2020). Race–sta- tus associations: Distinct effects of three novel measures among white and black perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pspa0 000257

Durante, F., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). How social-class stereotypes main- tain inequality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 43–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. copsyc. 2017. 07. 033

Easterbrook, M. J., Kuppens, T., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2020). Soci- oeconomic status and the structure of the self-concept. British Journal Social Psychology, 59, 66–86. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjso. 12334

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). (2016). Second European Union minorities and discrimination survey: Roma–selected findings. European Union Agency for Fundamen- tal Rights website. Retrieved from: https:// fra. europa. eu/ en/ publi cation/ 2016/ second- europ ean- union- minor ities- and- discr imina tion- survey- roma- selec ted- findi ngs

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Click, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respec- tively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037// 0022- 3514. 82.6. 878

Gibbons, F. X., Kingsbury, J. H., Weng, C. Y., Gerrard, M., Cutrona, C., Wills, T. A., & Stock, M. (2014). Effects of perceived racial discrimination on health status and health behavior: A differential mediation hypothesis. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, 33(1), 11–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0033 857

Grigoryev, D., Fiske, S. T., & Batkhina, A. (2019). Mapping ethnic stereotypes and their antecedents in Russia: The stereotype con- tent model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1643. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2019. 01643

Hellgren, Z., & Gabrielli, L. (2021). Racialization and aporophobia: Intersecting discriminations in the experiences of non-western migrants and Spanish Roma. Social Sciences, 10(5), 163. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ socsc i1005 0163

Race and Social Problems

1 3

Keefer, L. A., Goode, C., & Van Berkel, L. (2015). Toward a psycho- logical study of class consciousness: Development and validation of a social psychological model. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(2), 253–290. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5964/ jspp. v3i2. 492

Kende, A., Hadarics, M., Bigazzi, S., Boza, M., Kunst, J. R., Lantos, N. A., Lášticová, B., Minescu, A., Pivetti, M., & Urbiola, A. (2020). The last acceptable prejudice in Europe? Anti-Gypsyism as the obstacle to Roma inclusion. Group Processes & Intergroup Rela- tions. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13684 30220 907701

Kessler, R. C., & Neighbors, H. W. (1986). A new perspective on the relationships among race, social class, and psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27(2), 107–115. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 21363 10

Kóczé, A. (2009). Missing intersectionality: Race/ethnicity, gender, and class in current research and policies on Romani Women in Europe, Policy Studies Series. Budapest: Center for Policy Studies.

Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 992–1004. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ q0016 357

Kraus, M. W., & Stephens, N. M. (2012). A road map for an emerging psychology of social class. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 642–656. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1751- 9004. 2012. 00453.x

Lemm, K. M., Lane, K. A., Sattler, D. N., Khan, S. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2008). Assessing implicit cognitions with a paper-format implicit association test. In M. A. Morrison & T. G. Morrison (Eds.), The psychology of modern prejudice (pp. 123–146). Nova Science Publishers. Inc.

Levin, S., Sinclair, S., Veniegas, R. C., & Taylor, P. L. (2002). Per- ceived discrimination in the context of multiple group member- ships. Psychological Science, 13(6), 557–560.

López-Rodríguez, L., Cuadrado, I., & Navas, M. S. (2013). Aplicación extendida del Modelo del Contenido de los Estereotipos (SCM) hacia tres grupos de inmigrantes en España [Extended application of the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) towards three immigrants groups in Spain]. Estudios De Psicología, 34, 197–208. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1174/ 02109 39138 06751 375

López-Rodríguez, L., Cuadrado, I., & Navas, M. S. (2016). Accul- turation preferences and behavioural tendencies between majority and minority groups: The mediating role of emotions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 401–417. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ejsp. 2181

López-Rodríguez, L., & Zagefka, H. (2015). The effects of stereotype content on acculturation preferences and prosocial tendencies: The prominent role of morality. International Journal of Inter- cultural Relations, 45, 36–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijint rel. 2014. 12. 006

Lott, B. (2010). Multiculturalism and diversity: A social psychological perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.

Lott, B. (2012). The social psychology of class and classism. American Psychologist, 67(8), 650–658. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0029 369

Madeira, A. F., Costa-Lopes, R., Dovidio, J. F., Freitas, G., & Mas- carenhas, M. F. (2019). Primes and consequences: A systematic review of meritocracy in intergroup relations. Frontiers in Psy- chology. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2019. 02007

Magazzini, T., & Piemontese, S. (2016). Roma migration in the EU: The case of Spain between ‘new’ and ‘old’ minorities. Migration Letters, 13(2), 228–241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 33182/ ml. v13i2. 304

Mattan, B. D., Kubota, J. T., Li, T., Venezia, S. A., & Cloutier, J. (2019). Implicit evaluative biases toward targets varying in race and socioeconomic status. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 45(10), 1512–1527. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67219 835230

Mezzadra, S. (2021). Intersectionality, identity, and the riddle of class. Papeles Del CEIC. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1387/ pceic. 22759

Moore-Berg, S. L., & Karpinski, A. (2019). An intersectional approach to understanding how race and social class affect intergroup pro- cesses. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(1), 1–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ spc3. 12426

Moreno-Bella, E., Willis, G. B., & Moya, M. (2019). Economic ine- quality and masculinity-femininity: The prevailing perceived traits in higher unequal contexts are masculine. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1590. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2019. 01590

Navas, M. S., & Cuadrado, I. (2012). Actitudes hacia gitanos e inmi- grantes africanos: un estudio comparativo [Attitudes towards Gyp- sies and African immigrants: A comparative study]. Apuntes de Psicología, 30(1–3), 383–395.

Navas, M. S., Cuadrado, I., & López-Rodríguez, L. (2012). Fiabili- dad y evidencias de validez de la Escala de Percepción de Ame- naza Exogrupal (EPAE) [Reliability and validity evidence of the Out-group Threat Perception Scale (OTPS)]. Psicothema, 24(3), 477–482.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1980). The changing –not declining– significance of race. Contemporary Sociology, 9, 19–21.

Pratto, F., Çidam, A., Stewart, A. L., Zeineddine, F. B., Aranda, M., Aiello, A., Chryssochoou, X., Cichocka, A., Cohrs, J. C., Dur- rheim, K., Eicher, V., Foels, R., Górska, P., Lee, I.-C., Licata, L., Liu, J. H., Li, L., Meyer, I., Morselli, D., & Henkel, K. E. (2013). Social dominance in context and in individuals: Contextual mod- eration of robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Social Psychological and Personal- ity Science, 4(5), 587–599. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 19485 50612 473663

Richards, Z., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 52–73. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 7957P SPR05 01_4

Stroebe, K., Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2010). Experiencing discrim- ination: How members of disadvantaged groups can be helped to cope with discrimination. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4, 181–213. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1751- 2409. 2010. 01021.x

Urbiola, A., Willis, G. B., Ruiz-Romero, J., & Moya, M. (2018). Does a multicultural perspective shape unbiased minds? The moderat- ing role of outgroup threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(11), 608–617. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jasp. 12551

Velasco, G. K., Verkuyten, M., Weesie, J., & Poppe, E. (2008). Prej- udice towards Muslims in The Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 667–685. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1348/ 01446 6608X 284443

Weeks, M., & Lupfer, M. B. (2004). Complicating race: The relation- ship between prejudice, race, and social class categorizations. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 30(8), 972–984. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67204 264751

Wilson, W. J. (1978). The declining significance of race: Blacks and changing American institutions. University of Chicago Press.

Wright, E. O. (2009). Understanding class. Towards an integrated ana- lytical approach. New Left Review, 60, 101–116.

Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.