The following is an excerpt of the intervention methodology. For more information, please see the full text of the article on the publisher's website or through your institution's library.

STUDY 1

Participants Two-hundred and thirty-nine students from a French university [...] We considered 211 French participants (93% female, M_age = 20.87 years, SD = 4.81).

Measures Participants filled out a questionnaire in which five constructs were measured: beliefs about group malleability, threat, challenge, ethnocentrism, and prejudice. Our measure of beliefs about group malleability contained nine items [...] Four items represented an incremental/malleable conception of groups [...], whereas five reflected a more fixed/entity conception [...]. [...] Participants responded to the items of this measure (and to all other items in the questionnaire) on 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Threat and challenge were measured with a total of 13 items [...] Seven items measured the extent to which participants perceived intergroup situations as threatening [...] Six other items assessed participants’ tendency to construe intergroup situation as challenging [...] Participants also completed a 12-item ethnocentrism scale [...] and the eight-item version of the Modern Racism Scale toward Arabs [...]

STUDY 2

[...] In Study 2, we manipulated rather than measured participants’ beliefs about group malleability.

Participants One-hundred and sixty-seven students from a French university contributed with data for an online study. [...] Hence, we retained 143 participants for the analyses (75% female, M_age= 21.96 years, SD = 4.81).

Design and Measures Participants were assigned to either the incremental or the entity prime condition. [...] participants were asked to read three different proverbs. In the incremental prime condition, proverbs were related to change [...], whereas in the entity prime condition, the proverbs were related to the difficulty of changing [...]. Following each proverb, participants were asked about how familiar they were with the proverb (1 = not at all; 5= extremely) and to briefly describe its meaning. Participants were then told that these proverbs were normally applied to individuals, but it was possible to apply them also to social groups. They were asked to write down a name of a national group that came to their mind while thinking about each of the proverbs. Finally, participants rated their degree of agreement with the proverb (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). [...] Threat, challenge, ethnocentrism, and prejudice were measured with the same scales as in Study 1.