Aggregated networks of traits associated with female and Christian identities for (a) strongly self-defining Christians; (b) weakly self-defining Christians; and (c) strongly self-defining women; and (d) weakly self-defining women.

<p>Aggregated networks of traits associated with female and Christian identities for (a) strongly self-defining Christians; (b) weakly self-defining Christians; and (c) strongly self-defining women; and (d) weakly self-defining women.</p

Log transformed reaction times representing the interaction between match-type and self-defining Christianity (centred).

<p>Log transformed reaction times representing the interaction between match-type and self-defining Christianity (centred).</p

Network descriptives of both the strongly and weakly self-defining networks for (left) religion and gender (right).

<p>Network descriptives of both the strongly and weakly self-defining networks for (left) religion and gender (right).</p

Bivariate correlations of identity variables for all five groups.

<p>* <i>p</i> < .05,</p><p>** <i>p</i> < .01</p><p>Bivariate correlations of identity variables for all five groups.</p

Contrasts between beta estimates of the interaction between different Match-Types and self-defining religion.

<p>* <i>p</i> < .05,</p><p>** <i>p</i> < .001. Contrast are tested using a Chi-Square distribution, with one degree of freedom</p><p>Contrasts between beta estimates of the interaction between different Match-Types and self-defining religion.</p

Strongly self-defining (left) and weakly self-defining (right) gender network descriptives for important identity concepts in each network.

<p>Strongly self-defining (left) and weakly self-defining (right) gender network descriptives for important identity concepts in each network.</p

Mean perceived holisticness and self-definingness of Gender, Nationality, Christianity, Healthy-Living and Environment.

<p>Mean perceived holisticness and self-definingness of Gender, Nationality, Christianity, Healthy-Living and Environment.</p

Mediation analysis.

<p>A multilevel structural equation modelling 2-2-1 mediation analysis with one-tailed hypothesis tests (Preacher et al., 2010) estimated a marginal indirect effect of independent variable (IV) anticipated face-to-face contact on dependent variable (DV) identification via hostility anecdotes, <i>b</i> = 0.30, 90% CI [-0.01, 0.60], <i>p</i>_one-tailed = .05. Although they should be interpreted with caution, depicted estimated coefficients are consistent with a mediational model in which intragroup communication with (versus without) anticipated face-to-face intergroup contact encourages group members to share anecdotes about their personal experiences with ingroup-directed hostility, which in turn enhances ingroup identification.</p

Effects of intragroup communication and anticipated face-to-face intergroup contact on ingroup’s attitude towards the outgroup.

<p>Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals, scale ranged from -3 (<i>negative</i>) to 3 (<i>positive</i>). Intragroup communication while anticipating face-to-face intergroup contact (contrasted to the other three conditions) leads to more negative perceptions of the ingroup’s attitude towards the outgroup.</p

The effects of intragroup communication and anticipated face-to-face intergroup contact on identification.

<p>Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals, scale ranged from 1 to 7. Intragroup communication while anticipating face-to-face intergroup contact (contrasted to the other three conditions) increases group members’ identification with their ingroup.</p