anales de psicología, 2015, vol. 31, nº 3 (octubre), 930-940 http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.31.3.183941 © Copyright 2015: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia. Murcia (España) ISSN edición impresa: 0212-9728. ISSN edición web (http://revistas.um.es/analesps): 1695-2294 - 930 - Schematic representations of ethnic minorities in young university students Salvador Alvídrez 1* , Juan-José Igartua 2 y Mar Martínez-Rosón 2 1 Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon (Mexico). 2 University of Salamanca (Spain). Título: Representaciones esquemáticas del contacto con minorías étnicas en jóvenes universitarios. Resumen: el presente estudio hace un análisis de las representaciones cog- nitivas sobre minorías étnicas en una muestra de jóvenes universitarios es- pañoles. Como hipótesis general se señala que las diferencias de estatus so- cial percibidas ejercen un papel relevante en tales representaciones y en las expectativas de contacto. En varias entrevistas grupales los participantes fueron cuestionados sobre sus experiencias, conocimientos y expectativas asociadas a las interacciones con miembros de grupos étnicos minoritarios. La información recabada fue analizada a partir de un cruce de técnicas cua- litativas y cuantitativas para verificar las dimensiones subyacentes en sus respuestas. Los resultados confirmaron esta hipótesis mostrando distintas nociones de contacto (ej., positivo, negativo) asociadas a las representacio- nes de las minorías según su posición en la escala social percibida. Los ha- llazgos son discutidos en cuanto a su implicación para futuras intervencio- nes de contacto intergrupal. Palabras clave: Contacto intergrupal; esquemas cognitivos; minorías étni- cas; prejuicio; identidad social. Abstract: This study analyzes the cognitive representations of ethnic mi- norities in a sample of Spanish undergraduate students. As a general hy- pothesis it was predicted that perceived differences in social status shape these representations and expectations for contact. In consecutive group interviews, participants were quizzed about their knowledge, experiences and expectations associated with social interactions with people belonging to ethnic minority groups. The information obtained from the participants was analyzed by using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative techniques in order to discover underlying dimensions in their responses. The results confirmed our prediction by displaying different associations between dif- ferent types of contact (e.g., positive, negative) and the representations of minorities according to their position in the perceived social hierarchy. Findings are discussed in terms of their potential implications for contact interventions. Key words: Intergroup contact; cognitive schemas; ethnic minorities; prej- udice; social identity. 1*) Introduction Contemporary studies in the intergroup contact paradigm (Allport, 1954) have focused on the cognitive structures that influence communication dynamics between members of different groups (Cameron, Rutland, Turner et al. 2011; Lin, Zhang & Harwood, 2004). The way in which outgroup members are represented can determine, sometimes to a large extent, the success or failure of these meetings. This is due to the fact that interactions are made on the basis of pre- existent information deeply anchored in people‟s schemas of thought (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Harwood, McKee & Lin, 2000). The mental scaffolding underlying intergroup interac- tions seems more relevant in contexts of ethnic majorities and minorities because it is expected that a frequent and normalized contact with outgroups would contribute to eventually improving the relations between groups (Lee, 2001). However, despite the assumption that physical prox- imity in these contexts would enhance contact opportunities somehow, there is an established tendency among groups to avoid this type of encounter; specifically with members from highly stigmatized groups or with those considered to be so- cially inferior (Martinez, 2000). In multiethnic societies, a propensity to rank ethnic groups with the majority group at the top and the rest of the minorities in positions placed closer or further away accord- ing to the largest ingroup criteria, has been shown to exist in * Dirección para correspondencia [Correspondence address]: Salvador Alvídrez, Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Administración Públi- ca, Campus Mederos, Ave. Praga y Trieste s/n, Edificio de Posgrado, Col. Residencial Las Torres, 64930, Monterrey (México). E-mail: salvidrez@hushmail.com diverse countries and settings (e.g., Hagendoorn, Drogendijk, Tumanov & Hraba, 1998; Hraba, Hagendoorn & Hagendoorn, 1989; Snellman & Ekehammar, 2005). Dif- ferent aspects such as ethnocentrism, stereotyping, and per- ceptions of threat play an important role in the way this ranking is built, and mirror the interrelated social psycholog- ical and structural processes that shape group identities (Emessik & Mackie, 1989; Hraba et al., 1989; Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Members of high-status groups have access to antagonistic, normative, and ideologic intergroup repre- sentations that maintain and reinforce their privileged posi- tion by means of conventional processes of symbolic influ- ence (Lorenzi-Cioldi & Clémence, 2001; Staerklé, Clémence & Spini, 2011). The fear of losing status would lead these members to form relationships only with those outgroup members who are perceived to be more socially desirable, similar, or less vilified (Osbeck & Moghaddam, 1997). In contemporary research, there has been recurrent in- terest in finding out how perceptions of asymmetry in status, power, and access to resources may affect members‟ disposi- tions for contact (Gomez-Berrocal & Navas, 2000; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). Since Allport‟s conditions included equal status for group members in order to guarantee optimal out- comes, this structural imbalance could diminish or nullify the potential benefits of the interaction. As mentioned by Mar- tinez (2000): “It is likely that, when group relations are scarce, status differences are noticeable, and the perceptions about the outgroup are stereotyped, a hypothetical anticipa- tion of contact might bring about anxiety” (p. 35). There- fore, it is expected that an analysis of how the cognitive rep- resentations of outgroups are configured in a context of un- equal structures would contribute to a better understanding of the underlying beliefs about contact among members of