Online Appendix

Model 1: Racialized Affinity

Coefficient / Standard Error / p-value
Racialized candidate / 0.280 / 0.161 / 0.082
Income / -0.392 / 0.253 / 0.122
Education / 0.008 / 0.366 / 0.982
Age / 0.000 / 0.006 / 0.945
Male / 0.173 / 0.155 / 0.264
Religion (non-Christian) / -0.427 / 0.184 / 0.020
Religion (no religion) / -0.161 / 0.204 / 0.430
Immigrant / -0.006 / 0.166 / 0.970
Intercept / 0.078 / 0.448 / 0.862
Pseudo r2 =0.0122
n= 711
Note: Logistic Regression, with Vote for Candidate 2 as dependant variable.

Model 2: Specific Ethnocultural Groups

Coefficient / Standard Error / p-value
South Asian Respondent / 0.321 / 0.237 / 0.262
Other Racialized Respondent / 0.110 / 0.270 / 0.697
South Asian Candidate / -0.523 / 0.375 / 0.174
Chinese Candidate / -0.575 / 0.283 / 0.058
ChineseCandidate*SouthAsianRespondent / 0.121 / 0.483 / 0.813
ChineseCandidate*OtherVisminRespondendent / -0.181 / 0.392 / 0.670
SouthAsianCandidate*SouthAsianRespondent / 0.566 / 0.480 / 0.264
SouthAsianCandidate*OtherVisminRespondent / 0.175 / 0.388 / 0.676
Income / -0.491 / 0.196 / 0.057
Education / -0.045 / 0.271 / 0.904
Age / -0.001 / 0.005 / 0.862
Gender (Male) / 0.183 / 0.122 / 0.245
Religion (Non-Christian) / -0.216 / 0.148 / 0.272
Religion (No religion) / -0.012 / 0.198 / 0.959
Immigrant / -0.048 / 0.136 / 0.777
Constant / 0.407 / 0.351 / 0.398
Pseudo r2 = 0.0239
n= 711
Note: Logistic regression, with Vote for Candidate 2 as dependant variable.

Model 3: Specific Ethnocultural Groups and Strength of Identity

Coefficient / Standard Error / p-value
South Asian Respondent / -2.657 / 1.108 / 0.016
Other Racialized Respondents / -1.668 / 0.972 / 0.086
South Asian Candidate / -0.647 / 1.078 / 0.548
Chinese Candidate / -1.237 / 0.926 / 0.182
IDPG / 2.232 / 1.682 / 0.185
SouthAsianRespondent*IDPG / 1.950 / 1.508 / 0.196
OtherRacializedRespondent* IDPG / 0.773 / 1.565 / 0.621
ChineseCandidate* IDPG / 2.579 / 1.385 / 0.063
SouthAsianCandidate* IDPG / -0.907 / 1.011 / 0.369
ChineseCandidate*SouthAsianRespondent / 5.039 / 1.831 / 0.006
ChineseCandidate*Other RacializedRespondent / 2.905 / 1.534 / 0.058
SouthAsianCandidate*SouthAsianRespondent / 0.295 / 1.621 / 0.856
SouthAsianCandidate*OtherRacializedRespondent / 1.156 / 1.469 / 0.431
ChineseCandidate*SouthAsianRespondent* IDPG / -3.702 / 2.584 / 0.152
ChineseCandidate*OtherRacializedRespondent* IDPG / -3.595 / 2.442 / 0.141
SouthAsianCandidate*SouthAsianRespondent* IDPG / -0.392 / 2.378 / 0.869
SouthAsianCandidate*OtherRacializedRespondent* IDPG / -3.895 / 2.148 / 0.070
Income / -0.567 / 0.263 / 0.031
Education / -0.065 / 0.377 / 0.863
Age / -0.001 / 0.007 / 0.832
Gender (Male) / 0.217 / 0.160 / 0.175
Religion (Non-Christian) / -0.290 / 0.201 / 0.149
Religion (No religion) / -0.050 / 0.235 / 0.831
Immigrant / -0.066 / 0.174 / 0.705
Constant / 1.026 / 0.749 / 0.171
Pseudo r2 =0.0415
n= 711
Note: Logistic Regression, with Vote for Candidate 2 as dependant variable.

Model 4:Racialized Affinity for Different EthnicityCandidate and Strength of Identity

Coefficient / Standard Error / p-value
Racialized Candidate / -0.738 / 0.546 / 0.177
IDPG / -0.544 / 0.627 / 0.386
Racialized Candidate*IDPG / 1.450 / 0.846 / 0.087
Income / -0.438 / 0.289 / 0.130
Education / -0.019 / 0.415 / 0.964
Age / -0.003 / 0.007 / 0.639
Male / 0.200 / 0.175 / 0.251
Religion (Non-Christian) / -0.383 / 0.211 / 0.070
Religion (No Religion) / -0.176 / 0.241 / 0.465
Immigrant / 0.018 / 0.188 / 0.921
Constant / 0.533 / 0.630 / 0.397
Pseudo r2 =0.0129
n= 565
Note: Logistic Regression, with Vote for candidate 2 as dependant variable. Respondents who saw a same-ethnicity candidate are excluded.

Sample Demographics

Table 2: Demographics of Racialized Respondents

Web-Sample / CES / NHS
% Immigrant / 65% / 54% / 68%
Gender (% Female) / 50% / 56% / 52%
Median Household Income / $60,000-$89,000 / $65,000 / $70,000
Age (Median) / 42 / 46
% Over 65 / 14% / 15% / 10.20%

Note: Percentages rounded. Age data not comparable to the NHS, since it includes respondents younger than 18. Age over 65 for

NHS is percentage of visible minority population over 15 for NHS, over 18 for sample and CES.

NHS data for household income not yet released, figure cited is from 2006 census (CMHC 2011)

Source: 2011 Canadian Election Study and National Household Survey, 2011 Public Use Microdata File (PUMF).

Table 3: Educational Attainment of Racialized Respondents

Web-Sample / CES / NHS
Less than high school / 2% / 7% / 11%
High school diploma / 6% / 18% / 20%
College or Trades diploma / 22% / 20% / 22%
Some University / 11% / 14% / 8%
Undergraduate degree / 39% / 29% / 23%
Graduate or Professional Degree / 21% / 13% / 15%

Note: Percentages of total visible minorities. NHS data only includes ages 25-65. Percentages rounded.

Source: 2011 Canadian Election Study and National Household Survey, 2011 Public Use Microdata File (PUMF).

Note that the education seems to have a conditional effect on ethnic affinity; respondents with an undergraduate degree (or higher) are less likely to support same-ethnicityminority candidates, but morelikely to support different-ethnicityminority candidates. The difference is not large, but for respondents with less than an undergraduate degree the different-ethnicity affinity effects are no longer statistically significant even with high IDPG scores (though the predicted values are still positive). Given that the well educated are over-represented in the sample, it is possible that the average reported effects are higher than in the population as a whole, although, of course, experiments in general are not a good way to estimate the size of an effect in real elections.

Table 4:Immigrant Status by Ethnocultural Category

Web-Sample / CES / NHS
South Asian / 78% / 84% / 67%
Chinese / 64% / 77% / 70%
Other Racialized / 58% / 70% / 64%

Note: Percent immigrant for each group. Percentages rounded.

Source: 2011 Canadian Election Study andNational Household Survey, 2011 Public Use Microdata File (PUMF).

Table 5: Ethnicity as Percent of Total Racialized Respondents

Web-sample / CES / NHS
Chinese / 44% / 14% / 22%
South Asian / 19% / 23% / 25%
Other Racialized / 37% / 62% / 53%

Source: 2011 Canadian Election Study andNational Household Survey, 2011 Public Use Microdata File (PUMF).

Table 6: Results of the Candidate Experiment

Candidate Ethnicity
Respondent Ethnicity / White / Chinese / South Asian
Chinese / 51% / 59% / 53%
South Asian / 40% / 50% / 55%
Other Racialized / 36% / 40% / 43%

Note: Cell entries are support for candidate 2, rounded.

References

Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC). 2006 Census Housing Series: Issue 14—Housing Conditions of Visible Minority Households in Canada.

Canadian Election Study. 2011.2007[Data file and code book] (April 10, 2015).

Statistics Canada. 2011.2011 National Household Survey[Data file]www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/pumf-fmgd/index-eng.cfm(April 10, 2015).