Evaluating Research

Article

To Be or Not to Be (Black or Multiracial or White): Cultural Variation in Racial Boundaries

Jacqueline M. Chen1,2, Maria Clara P. de Paula Couto3, Airi M. Sacco4, and Yarrow Dunham5

Abstract

Culture shapes the meaning of race and, consequently, who is placed into which racial categories. Three experiments conducted in the United States and Brazil illustrated the cultural nature of racial categorization. In Experiment 1, a target’s racial ancestry influenced Americans’ categorizations but had no impact on Brazilians’ categorizations. Experiment 2 showed cultural differences in the reliance on two phenotypic cues to race; Brazilians’ categorizations were more strongly determined by skin tone than were Americans’ categorizations, and Americans’ categorizations were more strongly determined by other facial features compared to Brazilians’ categorizations. Experiment 3 demonstrated cultural differences in the motivated use of racial categories. When the racial hierarchy was threatened, only Americans more strictly enforced the Black–White racial boundary. Cultural forces shape the conceptual, perceptual, and ideological construal of racial categories.

Keywords

race, categorization, culture, intergroup relations, face perception

Immigrants to the United States have to complete several forms

to be naturalized, and many report being unsure of how they fit

into the racial/ethnic categories presented on these forms

(Joseph, 2015). A self-identification that many Americans take

for granted causes confusion among others, illustrating the

social nature of racial categories. Our research sheds light on

how racial boundaries are shaped by cultural forces.

Americans frequently essentialize race, treating observed

racial differences as stemming from unobservable but deep

internal properties that are vertically transmitted from parents

to their offspring (Hirschfeld, 1998). Despite these powerful

intuitions, however, determining a person’s race is not always

straightforward. Perceptions of one’s race can be influenced by

irrelevant characteristics (e.g., Freeman, Penner, Saperstein,

Scheutz, & Ambady, 2011; Hugenberg & Bodenhausen,

2004), and perceivers’ attitudes and motivations can influence

how they categorize individuals (e.g., Chen, Moons, Gaither,

Hamilton, & Sherman, 2014). Thus, despite objectivist intui-

tions about race, the ways that people actually racially categor-

ize others depend on the social and motivational context. We

further show that these processes are embedded within a cul-

tural context by conducting three experiments comparing per-

ceivers’ racial categorization processes in the United States

and Brazil. Specifically, we examine cultural differences in the

use of ancestry (Experiment 1) and phenotypic cues (Experi-

ment 2) in racial categorization and then investigate the cultural

specificity of the motivated enforcement of racial boundaries

(Experiment 3).

Both the United States and Brazil have a history of Native

American displacement, European settlement, and African

slavery. However, the two countries adopted different strate-

gies and practices to address racial diversity. While we cannot

do justice to this complex history here, we discuss below our

view that these historical differences have shaped cultural

divergences in race perception today. Our experimental

approach dovetails with sociological research comparing North

and South American racial stratification and ideology at macro-

levels (e.g., Bailey, Saperstein, & Penner, 2014; Telles, 2004,

2014) while also contributing to the growing psychological

literature on social categorization processes.

1 Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA 2 Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California,

Irvine, CA, USA 3 EduLab21, Ayrton Senna Institute, São Paulo, Brazil 4 Department of Psychology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil 5 Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jacqueline M. Chen, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake

City, UT 84112, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Social Psychological and Personality Science 2018, Vol. 9(7) 763-772 ª The Author(s) 2017 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1948550617725149 journals.sagepub.com/home/spp

Conventions of American Racial Ideology

Racial categorization in the United States focuses on delineat-

ing boundaries using individuals’ ancestry. For example, the

so-called “one-drop” laws institutionalized hypodescent, the

allocation of mixed ancestry individuals to the lower-status

group by specifying that a person with Black blood was

defined as Black, irrespective of their other ancestries or their

appearance (Davis, 1991). Not only were individuals’ ances-

tries central to determining their race, but society also empha-

sized maintaining racial boundaries by attempting to keep

races “separate but equal.” Thus, historical conventions

enable American perceivers’ assumption that racial groups

are biologically based, discrete, and stable (Banks & Eber-

hardt, 1998; Chen & Hamilton, 2012; Dunham & Olson,

2016; Richeson & Sommers, 2016), an assumption that self-

perpetuates (see Prentice & Miller, 2007; Williams & Eber-

hardt, 2008).

Past studies have provided insight into how American views

of race play out in social perception. White Americans continue

to engage in hypodescent when categorizing racially ambiguous

mixed race faces (Peery & Bodenhausen, 2008) or when consid-

ering how individuals of mixed ancestry should be categorized

(e.g., Ho, Sidanius, Levin, & Banaji, 2011; Sanchez, Good, &

Chavez, 2011; see also Ho, Kteily, & Chen, in press). Yet, it

is only beginning in middle childhood that Americans reliably

associate ancestry with race and exhibit hypodescent in their

categorizations of multiracial targets (Roberts & Gelman,

2015), suggesting that ancestry-based racial categorization pat-

terns are culturally learned. Further, perhaps reflecting the his-

torical effort to subordinate Black–White individuals using

one-drop rules, White Americans who are seeking to preserve

existing racial stratification are especially likely to engage in

hypodescent (Ho, Sidanius, Cuddy, & Banaji, 2013; Krosch &

Amodio, 2014; see also Penner & Saperstein, 2013).

Therefore, previous research clearly suggests that Ameri-

cans are socialized to view race through an essentialist lens that

can be traced back to the country’s historical treatment of race.

We seek to provide illuminating evidence of the cultural nature

of these processes by direct cross-cultural comparison with

race perception in Brazil.

Conventions of Brazilian Racial Ideology

Brazilian racial ideology emphasizes racial miscegenation and

the flexibility of racial categorization. After slavery was

abolished, the government explicitly encouraged interracial

marriage in an attempt to “dilute” Blackness in order to socially

and politically weaken the large African Brazilian population

(Telles, 2004, 2014). Encouraging individual upward mobility

via “self-whitening,” albeit for anti-Black reasons, tacitly

endorses a conceptualization of an individual’s race as flexible

and subject to change, while preserving the subordinate status

of the Black racial group overall. The individual fluidity norm

is in stark contrast with the United States, where miscegena-

tion, far from “diluting” Blackness, would serve to increase the

Black population through the operation of hypodescent. Today,

multiracial people are viewed as an intermediate racial group

between Blacks and Whites (Skidmore, 1993), and the Brazi-

lian census permits people to identify as Multiracial (“Parda”),

Black (“Preta”), or White (“Branca”) (Instituto Brasileiro de

Geografia e Estatı́stica, 2011).

Reflecting a fluid conceptualization of an individual’s race,

there were no formalized rules for racial classifications, nor any

institutionally sanctioned linking of race with ancestry (Telles,

2004). Instead, the push for self-whitening as a mechanism for

upward mobility linked race with socioeconomic status

(Schwartzman, 2007) and appearance (especially skin tone;

Telles, 2004), two attributes that are more malleable than one’s

ancestry. Reflecting the ultimate success of the cultural disso-

ciation between racial appearance and ancestry, Brazilians’

racial appearance and self-identification are only weakly pre-

dictive of their actual amount of African ancestry (Parra

et al., 2003).

To our knowledge, there is no social psychological research

examining Brazilians’ perceptions of race. Sociologists have

argued that Brazilians make racial categorizations on the basis

of appearance, privileging skin tone as the defining feature of

race (Telles, 2014), with little relation to their genetic ancestry

(Santos et al., 2009). Thus, our research seeks to experimen-

tally validate long-standing claims from sociology and provide

the first experimental cross-cultural comparison of race percep-

tion between the United States and Brazil.

Overview of Current Research

Three experiments show that the differences in cultural con-

ventions have powerful psychological consequences, affect-

ing how race is perceived and how racial boundaries are

defended. Experiment 1 examined cultural differences in the

conceptualization of race by manipulating ancestry and pit-

ting it against targets’ appearance. Experiment 2 examined

cultural differences in the perceptual bases of race, specifi-

cally in the use of skin tone versus facial features in racial

categorizations. Experiment 3 investigated the cultural-

embeddedness of motivated race perception by examining

whether the motivated use of racial boundaries functioned dif-

ferently across cultures.

Experiment 1

Experiment 1 investigated cultural differences in individuals’

use of a person’s ancestry versus appearance in racial categor-

ization. We hypothesized that individuals’ categorizations

would reflect cultural differences in the conceptualization of

race. Specifically, we predicted that Americans would categor-

ize targets consistent with their heritage whereas Brazilians

would categorize targets consistent with their appearance. In

addition, we expected to observe hypodescent in the categori-

zation of mixed ancestry targets among Americans but not

among Brazilians.

764 Social Psychological and Personality Science 9(7)

Method

Participants

Americans (n¼ 145; 100 females) participated in exchange for

partial credit for university psychology courses (Mage ¼ 19.93,

SD ¼ 2.16). Brazilians (n¼ 122; 101 females) participated after

being recruited from university psychology courses (Mage =

24.59; SD¼ 3.40). The SOM contains sample size goals, sample

racial demographics, and analyses by participant race for all

three studies.

Materials

The stimulus set consisted of eight faces of Multiracial children

(four female faces) from a larger Brazilian stimulus set (BIC-

Multicolor; Sacco, de Paula Couto, & Koller, 2016). We pre-

tested the faces in both countries (see SOM for details). To

be selected, the stimulus faces had to be considered Multiracial

(as opposed to Black or White) by at least 75% of participants

in both countries.

Survey materials for all three studies were created in English,

translated into Portuguese by a bilingual social psychologist, and

then checked by another bilingual social psychologist. All sur-

veys were programmed in Qualtrics and completed online.

Demographic questions were always at the end of the study, and

participants’ response options for race were determined by the

categories typically available on their country’s census.

Procedure

Participants consented to participate in a study assessing their

social attitudes and beliefs. Participants were randomly assigned

to view one of the targets, whose face was presented with the fol-

lowing background information: “This child was born in the

United States (Brazil). His (her) parents are African American

[vs. One of his (her) parents is African American, and the other

is White vs. His (her) parents are White].” Participants were

asked to categorize the target by race in an open-ended question

(“What race is this child?”).

Design

The study had a 2 (Culture: United States vs. Brazil) � 3

(Ancestry: two Black parents vs. one Black parent and one

White parent vs. two White parents) between-subjects design.

The frequency and type of racial categorizations were the

dependent variables.

Results

Although the majority of participants’ responses (approxi-

mately 76%) fell into the racial categories of Black, Multira-

cial, and White, a substantial proportion of their responses

did not. Americans (but not Brazilians) occasionally generated

alternative racial categorizations (e.g., Indian, Latino). Thus,

we analyzed participants’ categorizations of the target as

Black, Multiracial, White, or other. We tested our predictions

using analysis of variance (ANOVA; below) and multinomial

regression (in SOM), with both analyses reaching the same

conclusions.

We ran a 2 (Culture: United States vs. Brazil) � 3 (Ances-

try: Black vs. Black/White vs. White) � 4 (Racial Categoriza-

tion: Black, Multiracial, White, or Other) mixed model

ANOVA on participants’ categorizations, with the latter factor

being within-subjects. The predicted three-way interaction

between Culture, Ancestry, and Categorization emerged,

F(6, 783) ¼ 9.51, p < .001, Zp 2 ¼ .07 (see Figure 1). We thus

broke down the results separately by culture.

Among Brazilians, there was only a main effect of Categor-

ization, F(3, 357) ¼ 95.90, p < .001, Zp 2 ¼ .45. Regardless of

parents’ race, Brazilians categorized the children predomi-

nantly as Multiracial, M ¼ .72 95% CI [.65, .81], SE ¼ .04.

Multiracial categorizations were significantly more frequent

than Black M ¼ .07 95% CI [.03, .12], SE ¼ .02; White

M ¼ .18 95% CI [.11, .25], SE ¼ .04; or Other M ¼ .00 95% CI [.00, .00], SE ¼ .00 categorizations, all ps < .05. As

expected, Brazilians’ racial categorizations were uninfluenced

by information about the children’s ancestry.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Black Black-White White

Pr op

or ti

on o

f R ac

ia l C

at eg

or iz

at io

ns

Parents' Race

Brazil

White

Mixed

Black

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Black Black-White White

Pr op

or ti

on o

f R ac

ia l C

at eg

or iz

at io

ns

Parents' Race

USA

White

Mixed

Black

Other

Figure 1. Proportion of racial categorizations as a function of parents’ race and country in Experiment 1 (Whiskers denote +1 SE).

Chen et al. 765

Among Americans, there was a main effect of Categoriza-

tion, F(3, 426) ¼ 13.11, p < .001, Zp 2 ¼ .09, that was qualified

by the predicted interaction with Ancestry, F(6, 426) ¼ 20.57,

p < .001, Zp 2 ¼ .23. Americans were more likely to categorize

children as Black when their parents were Black, M ¼ .51 95% CI [.39, .63], SE ¼ .06, as opposed to Black/White, M ¼ .26

95% CI [.14, .37], SE ¼ .06, or White M ¼ .04 95% CI

[–.07, .16], SE ¼ .06, ps < .01. Participants were more likely

to categorize targets as Multiracial when they had only one

Black parent, M ¼ .59 95% CI [.49, .68], SE ¼ .05, as opposed

to two Black parents, [M¼ .04 95% CI [–.06, .14], SE¼ .05, or

two White parents, M ¼ .06 95% CI [–.04, .16], SE ¼ .04, ps <

.001. And participants were more likely to categorize targets as

White when both their parents were White, M ¼ .23 95% CI

[.16, .30], SE ¼ .04, compared to when one parent was White,

M ¼ .00 95% CI [–.07, .07], SE ¼ .03, or both were Black, M

¼ .00 95% CI [–.07, .07], SE¼ .04, ps < .001. Therefore, ances-

try strongly shaped Americans’ racial categorizations of the chil-

dren. The unexpected “Other” categorizations of the targets were

highest for two White parents, M ¼ .62 95% CI [.49, .75], SE¼ .07, ps < .01, and higher two Black parents, M ¼ .40 95% CI [.28, .53], SE ¼ .07, compared to when one parent was

White and the other Black, M ¼ .14 95% CI [.01, .26], SE ¼ .06, p ¼ .004.

Finally, we found evidence of hypodescent such that Amer-

icans were more likely to categorize a child with mixed paren-

tage as Black, M ¼ .26 95% CI [.14, .37], SE ¼ .06, than as

White, M ¼ .00 [–.07, .07], SE ¼ .03, p < .001. Brazilians did

not engage in hypodescent, categorizing a child with mixed

heritage as White, M ¼ .16 95% CI [.04, .27], SE ¼ .06, as

often as Black, M ¼ .07 [–.01, .15], SE ¼ .04, p ¼ .23.

Discussion

This study provides a clear illustration of cultural differences in

how individuals determine another person’s race. Whereas

Brazilians’ categorizations ignored targets’ ancestry and

focused only on appearance, Americans’ categorizations were

heavily influenced by targets’ ancestry and, to a lesser extent,

their appearance. These findings reflect the historical differ-

ences in how the United States and Brazil defined race, the for-

mer in terms of ancestry and hypodescent for multiracial

individuals, the latter in terms of appearance.

The use of the “other” categories, occurring only among

Americans and predominantly in the White parents condition,

shows that ancestry is not the only criterion for race in the

United States. Indeed, Americans’ categorizations were

partially driven by appearance, and this tendency was asym-

metric, such that perceivers most often rejected the ancestral

cue and generated alternative (non-White) categories when tar-

gets’ appearance seemingly did not match the White parentage

information. These findings suggest an interesting possibility—

that different racial categories have different criteria for mem-

bership in the United States. More generally, however, the

documented strong relationship between ancestry and race for

Americans, but not for Brazilians, reveals deep differences in

the factors driving racial categorization in each culture.

Experiment 2

Whereas Experiment 1 documented cultural differences in the

conceptual basis of racial categorization, Experiment 2 sought

a finer grained investigation of the use of two perceptual, that

is, phenotypic, cues (skin tone and other facial features) in

Americans’ and Brazilians’ categorizations. In doing so, we pro-

vided the first experimental investigation of United States-Brazil

differences in the perceptual bases of racial categorization.

Past work suggests that Americans’ racial categorization

will rely on both cues. Americans believe that one’s ancestry

and appearance are closely linked, such that they expect a child

of Black parents to look Black as well (Hirschfeld, 1998). Con-

sistent with this view, in the absence of ancestral information,

American adults’ racial categorizations and social evaluations

of individuals rely on both skin tone and facial features (e.g.,

Stepanova & Strube, 2012). Yet, skin tone is a stronger and

developmentally earlier-emerging predictor of American cate-

gorizations (Dunham, Stepanova, Dotsch, & Todorov, 2015;

Stepanova & Strube, 2012). Thus, we hypothesized that Amer-

icans’ categorizations would use both skin tone and facial fea-

tures, but that they would rely more on skin tone.

With respect to Brazil, macro-level and qualitative analyses

support the dominance of skin color over other phenotypic cues,

including facial features, in lay conceptions of race (Santos et al.,

2009; Telles, 2004, 2014; Travassos & Williams, 2004; but

see Bailey et al., 2014; Banton, 2012). Based on these findings

outside of experimental social psychology, we predicted that

Brazilians would use skin tone more than facial features.

Our research also directly compared the importance of skin

tone and facial features in racial categorizations in the United

States and Brazil. Because both qualitative (e.g., Telles,

2014) and quantitative (e.g., Experiment 1) research across

disciplines argue that lay definitions of race in the United States

focus on ancestry as a primary cue to race and on appearance as

a secondary cue, and because other social sciences indicate that

Brazilians define race primarily in terms of skin tone (e.g.,

Telles, 2014; Travassos & Williams, 2004), we predicted that

Brazilians would use skin tone more strongly than Americans.

Our investigation of between-culture differences in the use of

other facial features was more exploratory, but the sociological

work described above pointing to the centrality of skin color in

Brazil allowed us to cautiously predict that Brazilians would

make less use of these features than Americans.

Method

Participants

One hundred and nine Americans (62 females) were recruited

from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (Mage ¼ 35.67; SD ¼ 1.25). One hundred twenty-eight Brazilians (53 females,

28 males, and 47 declined to state) were a recruited in a conve-

nience sample (Mage ¼ 30.14; SD ¼ 0.94).

766 Social Psychological and Personality Science 9(7)

Materials and Procedure

Participants learned that they would be viewing faces and cate-

gorizing them by race (“What race is this person?” with Black,

Multiracial, and White response options). Two extensively

validated stimulus sets were used (Dunham et al., 2015; Stepa-

nova & Strube, 2012). The faces varied along two dimensions:

skin tone (very dark to very light) and facial features (very

Afrocentric to very Eurocentric). Both dimensions had 10 lev-

els. Participants were randomly assigned to a stimulus set and

categorized each face by race in random order.

Design

The study had a 2 (Culture: Brazil vs. United States) � 2

(Stimulus set) � 10 (Skin tone: very dark to very light) � 10

(Facial features: very Afrocentric to very Eurocentric) mixed

design, with the latter two factors being within-subjects. The

dependent variable was racial categorization. Including stimu-

lus set as a factor did not change the results, and we collapsed

across this factor.

Results and Discussion

We conducted a fixed-effects multilevel model predicting

categorization (1 ¼ Black, 2 ¼ Multiracial, and 3 ¼ White)

with mean-centered skin tone and facial features nested within

individual participants (i.e., Level 1 factors). The model also

included the individual-level (i.e., Level 2) predictor of Culture

(0 ¼ Brazil, 1 ¼ United States), all two-way interactions, and

the three-way interaction (see SOM for full results).1

The culture by skin tone interaction, F(1, 9663) ¼ 230.20,

p < .001, supported our hypothesis that skin tone influenced

Brazilians’ categorizations, b ¼ .18, SE ¼ .002, b ¼ .54

95% CI[.52., .54], p < .001, more strongly than Americans’

categorizations, b ¼ .15, SE ¼ .002, b ¼ .44 95% CI [.43,

.45], p < .001 (see Figure 2, top panel). In addition, the culture

by facial features interaction, F(1, 10753) ¼ 169.01, p < .001,

showed that facial features had a stronger impact on Ameri-

cans’ categorizations, b ¼ .09, SE ¼ .002, b ¼ .28 95% CI

[.27, .29], p < .001, than on Brazilians’, b ¼ .06, SE ¼ .002,

b ¼ .19 95% CI [.16, .18], p < .001 (see Figure 2, bottom

panel). Thus, Brazilians’ categorizations were more strongly

predicted by skin tone and more weakly associated with facial

features compared to Americans’ categorizations. The 95% CIs for skin tone versus facial features were not overlapping

within either culture, indicating that both Brazilians and

Americans would rely on skin tone more than on facial

features to make racial categorizations.

In sum, Experiment 2 determined that Brazilian and Ameri-

can race perception differentially relies on phenotypic cues, indi-

cating that attention to facial physiognomy is culturally directed.

Future research is necessary to understand at what age these cul-

tural differences emerge and what processes “tune” Americans’

racial judgments to appearance-based cues other than skin tone

(cf. Dunham, Dotsch, Clark, & Stepanova, 2016).

Taken together, Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that cul-

tural differences in racial categorization stem from several

quite different sources, including patterns of inference (as when

categorizations are influenced by parentage information) and

the lower-level properties of faces themselves (as when both

skin color and other facial features differently predict categor-

ization across cultures).

Experiment 3

Not only is the definition of race socially determined, but the

use of racial categories can also serve social functions.

Experiment 3 sought to demonstrate that the opposing racial

ideologies pervading U.S. and Brazilian cultures have impli-

cations for the motivated use of racial categories by individ-

ual perceivers. We use the well-established individual

difference, social dominance orientation (SDO), that cap-

tures perceivers’ likelihood of supporting existing status

hierarchies (Ho et al., 2015; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, &

Malle, 1994). People high in SDO are relatively anti-

egalitarian, tolerating social inequalities within a society,

whereas people low in SDO are relatively egalitarian, prefer-

ring social equality within a society. Thus, only people high

in SDO are motivated to protect the status quo when they

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

Darker Lighter

Ra ci

al C

at eg

or iz

at io

ns (B

la ck

to W

hi te

)

Skin tone

USA

Brazil

b = .18***

b = .15***

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

More Afrocentric More Eurocentric

Ra ci

al C

at eg

or iz

at io

ns (B

la ck

to W

hi te

)

Facial features

USA

Brazil

b = .06***

b = .09***

Figure 2. Use of skin tone (upper graph) and facial features (lower graph) in racial categorizations by culture in Experiment 2.

Chen et al. 767

feel that the current hierarchy is under threat due to growing

social equality (Ho et al., 2013).

As reviewed in the Introduction, American institutions at-

tempted to maintain the racial hierarchy by imposing

formal rules for denying rights and resources to the socially

subordinate group, Black Americans. Hypodescent emerges

especially strongly when high SDO White Americans feel that

the racial status quo is threatened (Ho et al., 2013; see also

Krosch & Amodio, 2014; Krosch, Berntsen, Amodio, Jost, &

Van Bavel, 2013). Thus, hypodescent has served and continues

to serve a hierarchy-strengthening purpose in the United States.

In contrast, Brazilian post-abolition efforts encouraged mis-

cegenation in order to highlight the possibility of individual

upward mobility and to decrease the number of people

self-identifying as Black (Telles, 2004, 2014). The Brazilian

endorsement of individual mobility via racial fluidity served

as a mechanism for preserving the racial hierarchy by allowing

individuals to be upwardly mobile (passing into higher status

racial categories and reducing the size of the subordinate Black

category) without changing the hierarchical positions of the

racial categories themselves. Thus, in Brazil, the racial fluidity

of the individual enables the preservation of the racial hierar-

chy of groups, and hypodescent has no historical precedent.

Experiment 3 directly tested the cultural specificity of the moti-

vated use of hypodescent. We hypothesized that, when the racial

hierarchy is under threat, Americans high in SDO would seek to

preserve the racial category boundary by making more Black cate-

gorizations of multiracial targets (replicating past work), but that

Brazilians high in SDO would not make more Black categoriza-

tions because, in their cultural context, it is flexibility, rather than

rigidity, of racial boundaries that enables preservation of the status

quo. Consistent with this view, it was possible that higher SDO

Brazilians might make fewer Black categorizations, reflecting the

historical effort to dilute the Black population.

Method

Participants

Americans (n ¼ 147; 102 females, 1 declined to state) partici-

pated in exchange for partial course credit for university psy-

chology courses (Mage ¼ 20.46; SD ¼ 1.97). Brazilians (n ¼ 145; 93 females) were recruited from university psychology

courses (Mage ¼ 23.64; SD ¼ 3.83).

Materials and Procedure

We measured participants’ motivation to protect the status quo

using the SDO scale (Pratto et al., 1994). The manipulation

texts (low and high threat to the status quo) described social

advantages favoring Whites (low threat; i.e., stable status quo)

or a significant change favoring Black people (high threat; i.e.,

unstable status quo). For pretesting details, see the SOM.

Participants first completed the measure of SDO. Next, par-

ticipants were randomly assigned to read either the low or high

threat vignette and then answered three comprehension ques-

tions (which served as a manipulation check and was

successful; see SOM). Participants then completed two racial

categorization questions, each consisting of viewing an array

of 10 faces (a subset of Experiment 2 stimuli) arranged

next to each other and ranging from reliably Black to reliably

White (based on Experiment 2 responses). Participants were

randomly assigned to view the face array that went from Black

to White or from White to Black (i.e., the face array direction

factor). For each face, participants were asked to indicate its

race using a culturally normative categorization task first

(involving two choices—Black or White—for Americans and

three choices—Black, Multiracial, or White—for Brazilians)

followed by the non-normative task. Thus, each participant

responded to a face array twice.2

Design

The study had a 2 (Culture: United States vs. Brazil) � 2

(Threat: low vs. high) � 2 (Face Array Direction: Black to

White vs. White to Black) � continuous (SDO) � 2 (Categor-

ization Task: 2 vs. 3 categories) mixed design, with the latter

factor being within-subjects. The proportion of Black categor-

izations was the dependent variable. The face array direction

factor did not moderate the results and therefore, we collapsed

across this factor in the analyses.

Results and Discussion

We conducted a fixed-effects multilevel model predicting

the proportion of Black categorizations with categorization

task (0 ¼ two-choice task, 1 ¼ three-choice task) nested

within individual participants (i.e., Level 1 factors). The

model included the individual-level (i.e., Level 2) predictor

of Culture (0 ¼ Brazil, 1 ¼ United States), Threat (0 ¼ low

threat, 1 ¼ high threat), mean-centered SDO, all two-way

interactions, all three-way interactions, and the four-way

interaction. We report the focal effects here and secondary

findings in the SOM.

There was a main effect of Culture, F(1, 534) ¼ 23.79, p <

.001, because Americans, M¼ .43 95% CI [.42, .45], SE¼ .01.

made more Black categorizations than Brazilians did, M ¼ .37

95% CI [.35, .39], SE ¼ .01. There was also a significant

Culture by SDO interaction, F(1, 534) ¼ 7.29, p ¼ .01.

Overall, SDO predicted fewer Black categorizations among

Brazilians, b ¼ –.28 95% CI [–.48, –.07], SE ¼ .10, p ¼ .01,

but did not predict Black categorizations among Americans,

b ¼ .11 95% CI [–.08, .30], SE ¼ .10, p ¼ .25. Among

Brazilians, there was no difference in the association between

SDO and Black categorizations between threat conditions, p¼ .30. In other words, among Brazilians across both threat

conditions, stronger motives to uphold the hierarchy (i.e., high

SDO) predicted fewer Black categorizations, consistent with

the idea that seeing fewer individuals as Black, or

“whitening,” preserves the status quo in their culture. Among

Americans, threat condition had a significant effect on

the relationship between SDO and Black categorizations,

p < .001, as described below.

768 Social Psychological and Personality Science 9(7)

There was a marginally significant three-way interaction

among Culture, Threat, and SDO, F(1, 543) ¼ 2.96, p ¼ .086 (see Figure 3). In the low threat condition, there was

no significant cultural difference, p ¼ .48. SDO predicted

fewer Black categorizations among Brazilians, b ¼ –.39

95% CI [–.67, –.11], SE ¼ .14, b¼ –.35, p ¼ .01, and margin-

ally fewer Black categorizations among Americans, b ¼ –.25

95% CI [–.51, .01], SE ¼ .13, b ¼ –.23, p ¼ .06. In the focal

high threat condition, there was a significant cultural differ-

ence, p ¼ .002. SDO was only associated with more Black

categorizations among Americans, b ¼ .46 95% CI [.18,

.73], SE ¼ .14, b ¼ .42, p ¼ .001, but not among Brazilians,

b ¼ –.17 95% CI [–.47, .13], SE ¼ .15, b ¼ –.16, p ¼ .26.

Additional follow-up comparisons showed that low SDO indi-

viduals (–1SD) made fewer Black categorizations in high

threat condition than in the low threat condition in Brazil,

b = .06 95% CI [.02, .10], SE ¼ .02, p ¼ .004, and in the

United States, b ¼ .09 95% CI [.03, .14], SE ¼ .03, p ¼ .004. However, among high SDO individuals (þ1 SD), high

threat only increased Black categorizations relative to low

threat among Americans, b ¼ –.04 95% CI [–.08, –.004],

SE = .02, p ¼ .03, and not among Brazilians, p ¼ .52.3

In summary, replicating previous research, Americans with

a strong motivation to preserve the status quo engaged in hypo-

descent when the hierarchy was under threat. Yet, high threat to

the status quo did not elicit hypodescent among Brazilians with

a strong motivation to preserve the status quo. Instead, among

Brazilians, there was suggestive evidence for “whitening,”

such that anti-egalitarian individuals made fewer Black cate-

gorizations across the two threat conditions—an interesting

finding worthy of further investigation. Experiment 3 illus-

trates that racial boundaries serve culturally specific motiva-

tions and provides the first evidence for motivation

underlying Brazilians’ racial categorizations.

General Discussion

Our findings illustrate that cultural forces shape racial category

boundaries, as determined on conceptual, perceptual, and ideolo-

gical bases. Experiment 1 demonstrated that defining race in

terms of one’s ancestry is an American tendency not shared by

Brazilians. Experiment 2 showed that race is more closely tied

to skin tone for Brazilians than for Americans, whereas facial

features determined Americans’ racial categorizations more than

Brazilians’ racial categorizations. Experiment 3 established that

hypodescent is used to reaffirm a threatened social hierarchy

only by Americans and not by Brazilians, who seemed to use

individual racial mobility to protect the status quo. These experi-

ments demonstrate that the same individual can be categorized

differently depending on where she is and who is perceiving her.

Our research raises many questions for future research. The

fact that some aspects of race perception today reflect long-

standing cultural conventions is consistent with mutual consti-

tution (Markus & Kitayama, 2010; Shweder, 1990), whereby

enduring institutions and informal practices mutually reinforce

each other and influence individuals’ psychology, which

shapes institutions and social norms. Of course, proximal

mechanisms of socialization must be responsible for transmit-

ting psychological tendencies over time. One possibility is that

the diversity of one’s social context influences which racial

categories are cognitively accessible and the basis on which

these categories are applied (Chong et al., 2015; Pauker, Wil-

liams, & Steele, 2015). Another relevant factor is the level of

interracial exposure in one’s environment, which predicts how

Americans cognitively represent Black and White racial cate-

gories (Freeman, Pauker, & Sanchez, 2016). Therefore, imme-

diate social contextual characteristics, such as racial diversity

in the environment, that have been shaped by culture and his-

tory may shed light on the mechanisms for the observed cul-

tural differences (see also Halberstadt, Sherman, & Sherman,

2011; Quintana, 1998).

Our research was certainly not without limitations. The

experiments relied on predominantly White Americans, Asian

Americans, and White Brazilians. Researchers should be careful

in generalizing these findings to other populations, and future

work should investigate how members of other racial groups per-

ceive racial boundaries (including those between racial groups

not studied here) across cultures. We also want to highlight the

possibility of regional variability in our findings as both coun-

tries studied here have large and heterogeneous populations.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Low SDO High SDO

Pr op

or ti

on o

f B la

ck C

at eg

or iz

at io

ns

Brazil

Low Threat

High Threat

b = -.39**

b = -.17

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

odshgihodswol

N um

be r o

f B la

ck C

at eg

or iz

at io

ns

USA

low threat

high threat

b = .46***

b = -.25+

**

** *

Figure 3. Number of Black categorizations by threat condition, SDO, and culture in Experiment 3. SDO ¼ social dominance orientation. þp < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Chen et al. 769

Finally, the importance of specific racial categories can shift

over time (e.g., Ignatiev, 2009), and we encourage researchers

to think about how contemporary sociopolitical issues may influ-

ence shifts in racial categories, temporary or lasting. We hope

that the present work sparks research on these interesting

questions.

Practically speaking, although classifying individuals by

race is often taken for granted as an objective criterion, our

research demonstrates that the process of placing individuals

into racial categories is subjective. We suggest that researchers

consider using comprehensive measures of race, separating

perception (the focus of this research) from ancestry, appear-

ance, and identity, to improve our understanding of important

outcomes such as racial differences in achievement and health

(Roth, 2016; Saperstein, 2006).

Cultural differences in racial boundaries highlight the social

construction of race. While category-based prejudice is a problem

faced in all societies, there is variability in how and where these

boundaries are drawn. Our research begins to unpack the psychol-

ogy of race in Brazil and helps to better understand the sources of

Americans’ deeply held essentialist assumptions about race.

Authors’ Note

The second author is a member of eduLab21 at Ayrton Senna Institute.

eduLab21 is a laboratory dedicated to the production and dissemina-

tion of scientific knowledge to support public policy formulations for

Education. eduLab21 encourages the production of new knowledge

and the mapping of existing information on socioemotional skills and

their role on Education. The research presented in this manuscript was

carried out independently by the second author and is not related to his

or her work at eduLab21.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the

article.

Notes

1. We ran the model including both skin tone and facial features as

predictors because it had better fit in both cultures compared to a

model predicting racial categorization from skin tone alone (see

SOM for details and additional data visualizations).

2. Our method confounds the order of the categorization task (i.e.,

Americans always received Black/White task first and Brazilians

always received Black/Multiracial/White task first). Due to logisti-

cal concerns about doubling the necessary sample, we could not

afford to counterbalance the order of the categorization task. We

therefore chose to have participants first complete the task that

would be most natural to them. Participants’ responses only mar-

ginally varied by categorization task (2 vs. 3 choices; see Results

and SOM).

3. There was also a marginal four-way interaction among Culture,

Threat, Social Dominance Orientation, and Categorization Task,

F(1, 534) ¼ 2.81, p ¼ .094. Although this interaction was not

anticipated and did not reach the conventional significance level,

we conducted follow-up analyses that are detailed in the SOM.

Essentially, the hypothesis-testing three-way interaction was stron-

ger in the two-choice categorization task than in the three-choice

categorization task.

References

Bailey, S., Saperstein, A., & Penner, A. (2014). Race, color, and

income inequality across the Americas. Demographic Research,

31, 735–756.

Banks, R. R., & Eberhardt, J. L. (1998). Social psychological pro-

cesses and the legal bases of racial categorization. In S. Fiske &

J. L. Eberhardt (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the

response (pp. 54–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Banton, M. (2012). The colour line and the colour scale in the twen-

tieth century. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35, 1109–1131.

Chen, J. M., & Hamilton, D. L. (2012). Natural ambiguities: Racial

categorization of multiracial individuals. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 48, 152–164.

Chen, J. M., Moons, W. G., Gaither, S. E., Hamilton, D. L., & Sher-

man, J. W. (2014). Motivation to control prejudice predicts cate-

gorization of multiracials. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 40, 590–603.

Chong, A., Coffinet, L., Tagomori, J., Meyers, C., Carpinella, C., &

Pauker, K. (2015, March). What are you? Differences in racial

labeling between Hawai’i and Northern California children. Pos-

ter presented at the Biennial Meeting of Society for Research in

Child Development, Philadelphia, PA.

Davis, F. J. (1991). The one-drop rule defined. Who is Black? One Nation’s

definition. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Dunham, Y., Dotsch, R., Clark, A. R., & Stepanova, E. V. (2016). The

development of White-Asian categorization: Contributions from

skin color and other physiognomic cues. PLoS One, 11,

e0158211–e0158220. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158211

Dunham, Y., & Olson, K. R. (2016). Beyond discrete categories:

Studying multiracial, intersex, and transgender children will

strengthen basic developmental science. Journal of Cognition and

Development, 17, 642–665.

Dunham, Y., Stepanova, E. V., Dotsch, R., & Todorov, A. (2015). The

development of race-based perceptual categorization: Skin color

dominates early category judgments. Developmental Science, 18,

469–483.

Freeman, J. B., Pauker, K., & Sanchez, D. T. (2016). A perceptual

pathway to bias: Interracial exposure reduces abrupt shifts in

real-time race perception that predict mixed-race bias. Psychologi-

cal Science, 27, 502–517.

Freeman, J. B., Penner, A. M., Saperstein, A., Scheutz, M., &

Ambady, N. (2011). Looking the part: Social status cues shape race

perception. PLoS One, 6, e25107.

770 Social Psychological and Personality Science 9(7)

Halberstadt, J., Sherman, S. J., & Sherman, J. W. (2011). Why Barack

Obama is black: A cognitive account of hypodescent. Psychologi-

cal Science, 22, 29–33.

Hirschfeld, L. A. (1998). Race in the making: Cognition, culture, and

the child’s construction of human kinds. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Ho, A. K., Kteily, N., & Chen, J. M. (in press). “You’re one of us”:

Black Americans’ use of hypodescent and its association with ega-

litarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Cuddy, A. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2013). Sta-

tus boundary enforcement and the categorization of Black–

White biracials. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

49, 940–943.

Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F.,

Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of

social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring prefer-

ences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003.

Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Levin, D. T., & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Evidence

for hypodescent and racial hierarchy in the categorization and per-

ception of biracial individuals. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 100, 492.

Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2004). Ambiguity in social

categorization the role of prejudice and facial affect in race cate-

gorization. Psychological Science, 15, 342–345.

Ignatiev, N. (2009). How the Irish became White. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatı́stica. (2011). Censo Demo-

gráfico 2010—Caracterı́sticas da populacao e dos domicı́lios:

Resultados do universo [Brazilian census 2010—Characteristics

of the population and households: Overall results]. Retrieved

March 18, 2016, from http://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/

periodicos/93/cd_2010_caracteristicas_populacao_domicilios.pdf

Joseph, T. (2015). Race on the move: Brazilian migrants and the glo-

bal reconstruction of race. Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press.

Krosch, A. R., & Amodio, D. M. (2014). Economic scarcity alters the

perception of race. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 111, 9079–9084.

Krosch, A. R., Berntsen, L., Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., & Van Bavel,

J. J. (2013). On the ideology of hypodescent: Political conserva-

tism predicts categorization of racially ambiguous faces as Black.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1196–1203.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of

mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5,

420–430.

Parra, F. C., Amado, R. C., Lambertucci, J. R., Rocha, J., Antunes, C.

M., & Pena, S. D. (2003). Color and genomic ancestry in Brazi-

lians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100,

177–182.

Pauker, K., Williams, A., & Steele, J. R. (2016). Children’s racial

categorization in context. Child Development Perspectives, 10,

33–38.

Peery, D., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2008). Black þ White ¼ Black

hypodescent in reflexive categorization of racially ambiguous

faces. Psychological Science, 19, 973–977.

Penner, A. M., & Saperstein, A. (2013). Engendering racial percep-

tions: An intersectional analysis of how social status shapes race.

Gender & Society, 27, 319–344.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social

dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social

and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 67, 741.

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Psychological essentialism of

human categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science,

16, 202–206.

Quintana, S. M. (1998). Children’s developmental understanding

of ethnicity and race. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7,

27–45.

Richeson, J. A., & Sommers, S. R. (2016). Toward a social psychol-

ogy of race and race relations for the twenty-first century. Annual

Review of Psychology, 67, 439–463.

Roberts, S. O., & Gelman, S. A. (2015). Do children see in Black and

White? Children’s and adults’ categorizations of multiracial indi-

viduals. Child Development, 86, 1830–1847.

Roth, W. D. (2016). The multiple dimensions of race. Ethnic and

Racial Studies, 39, 1310–1338.

Sacco, A. M., de Paula Couto, M. C. P., & Koller, S. H. (2016). Con-

struction and validation of the White, Pardo, and black children

picture set (BIC-multicolor). Psychology & Neuroscience, 9,

68–78.

Sanchez, D. T., Good, J. J., & Chavez, G. (2011). Blood quantum and

perceptions of black-white biracial targets: The black ancestry pro-

totype model of affirmative action. Personality & Social Psychol-

ogy Bulletin, 37, 3–14.

Santos, R. V., Fry, P. H., Monteiro, S., Maio, M. C., Rodrigues, J. C.,

Bastos-Rodrigues, L., & Pena, S. D. (2009). Color, race, and geno-

mic ancestry in Brazil. Current Anthropology, 50, 787–815.

Saperstein, A. (2006). Double-checking the race box: Examining

inconsistency between survey measures of observed and self-

reported race. Social Forces, 85, 57–74.

Schwartzman, L. F. (2007). Does money whiten? Intergenerational

changes in racial classification in Brazil. American Sociological

Review, 72, 940–963.

Shweder, R. A. (1999). Why cultural psychology? Ethos, 27, 62–73.

Skidmore, T. E. (1993). Black into white: Race and nationality in Bra-

zilian thought. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Stepanova, E. V., & Strube, M. J. (2012). The role of skin color and

facial physiognomy in racial categorization: Moderation by impli-

cit racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48,

867–878.

Telles, E. E. (2004). Race in another America. Princeton, NJ: Prince-

ton University Press.

Telles, E. E. (2014). Pigmentocracies: Ethnicity, race, and color in

Latin America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Travassos, C., & Williams, D. R. (2004). The concept and measure-

ment of race and their relationship to public health: A review

focused on Brazil and the United States. Cadernos de saúde

pública, 20, 660–678.

Williams, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of

race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1033.

Chen et al. 771

Author Biographies

Jacqueline M. Chen is an assistant professor of psychology at the

University of Utah and the University of California, Irvine. Her

research examines how social group memberships, especially race,

influence social perception and interaction.

Maria Clara P. de Paula Couto, PhD, Federal University of Rio

Grande do Sul, 2011, is a project manager at Ayrton Senna Institute,

where she works with education projects focusing youth development.

In terms of research topics, she is interested in automatically activated

attitudes (e.g., evaluative priming), prejudice and stereotyping, and

evidence-based psychological and educational interventions.

Airi M. Sacco is an assistant professor of psychology at the Fed-

eral University of Pelotas (UFPel) in Brazil. Her research

focuses on developmental social cognition, prejudice, and

human rights.

Yarrow Dunham is an assistant professor of psychology and cogni-

tive science and the director of the Social Cognitive Development Lab

(https://socialcogdev.com). His research focuses on studying how

knowledge of social groups is acquired, both in cognitively mature

adults and in developing children, and drawing on a range of social,

cognitive, and developmental methodologies.

Handling Editor: Jesse Graham

772 Social Psychological and Personality Science 9(7)

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 50SWOP51 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 266 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average /ColorImageResolution 175 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages false /GrayImageMinResolution 266 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Average /GrayImageResolution 175 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages false /MonoImageMinResolution 900 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 175 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated 50SWOP51 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ENU <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> >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 9 9 9 9 ] /ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /DestinationProfileSelector /UseName /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /ClipComplexRegions true /ConvertStrokesToOutlines false /ConvertTextToOutlines false /GradientResolution 300 /LineArtTextResolution 1200 /PresetName ([High Resolution]) /PresetSelector /HighResolution /RasterVectorBalance 1 >> /FormElements true /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MarksOffset 9 /MarksWeight 0.125000 /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PageMarksFile /RomanDefault /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [288 288] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice