Assessing anti-White attitudes and predicting perceived racism: the Johnson-Lecci scale

Five studies are herein reported to describe the development and preliminary validation of the Johnson-Lecci Scale (JLS), a multicomponent self-report measure of anti-White attitudes held among Blacks. Items were generated from the everyday experiences of Black respondents using an act-frequency approach, and the scale configuration was derived using factor analysis. The factor structure was shown to be robust because it was cross-validated in an independent sample. The resulting JLS factors (subscales) were ingroup-directed stigmatization and discriminatory expectations, outgroup-directed negative beliefs, negative views toward ingroup-outgroup relations, and negative verbal expression toward the outgroup. These subscales were shown to predict the interpretations of ambiguously racist scenarios (i.e., perceived racism) and converged with peer evaluations of the target's anti-White attitudes. The subscales also demonstrate both convergent and discriminant validity with other self-report assessments of bias relating to age, gender, education, socioeconomic status, and race.     

Why are attributions to discrimination interpersonally costly? A test of system- and group-justifying motivations

In two studies, Whites' endorsement of system-justifying beliefs predicted increased negativity toward Blacks who blamed negative events on discrimination. Whites' system-justifying beliefs were not associated with negativity toward Blacks who blamed negative events on other internal causes, external causes, or nondiscriminatory unfairness. These negative reactions toward discrimination claimants were mediated by perceptions that the claimant held dissimilar values and failed to take personal responsibility for outcomes. In both studies, participants' White Identification did not moderate the relationship between the Black target's attribution for failure and subsequent negative perceptions of that individual, thus providing evidence against a group-justification explanation of these findings.     

Coalition or derogation? How perceived discrimination influences intraminority intergroup relations

Five studies explored how perceived societal discrimination against one's own racial group influences racial minority group members' attitudes toward other racial minorities. Examining Black-Latino relations, Studies 1a and 1b showed that perceived discrimination toward oneself and one's own racial group may be positively associated with expressed closeness and common fate with another racial minority group, especially if individuals attribute past experiences of discrimination to their racial identity rather than to other social identities (Study 1b). In Studies 2-5, Asian American (Studies 2, 3, and 4) and Latino (Study 5) participants were primed with discrimination against their respective racial groups (or not) and completed measures of attitudes toward Black Americans. Participants primed with racial discrimination expressed greater positivity toward and perceived similarity with Blacks than did participants who were not primed. These results suggest, consistent with the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), that salient discrimination against one's own racial group may trigger a common "disadvantaged racial minority" (ingroup) identity that engenders more positive attitudes toward and feelings of closeness toward other racial minorities.     

Humility attenuates negative attitudes and behaviors toward religious out-group members

Humility is marked by the regulation of selfish impulses for the sake of others, including holding a modest view of one’s beliefs (and their relative strengths and weaknesses). In three studies, we evaluated the extent to which humility attenuates negative attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behaviors toward religious out-group members. In Study 1 (N = 159), humility regarding religious beliefs was associated with positive attitudes toward religiously different individuals. In Study 2 (N = 149), relational and intellectual humility were associated with less aggressive behavioral intentions in a hypothetical situation in which their cherished beliefs were criticized. In Study 3 (N = 62), participants implicitly primed with humility administered significantly less hot sauce (a behavioral measure of aggression) to a religious out-group member who criticized their cherished views relative to participants in the neutral prime condition. We highlight the importance of humility in promoting positive attitudes and behaviors toward religious out-group members.     

A joke is just a joke (except when it isn't): cavalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives

Past research reveals preferences for disparaging humor directed toward disliked others. The group-dominance model of humor appreciation introduces the hypothesis that beyond initial outgroup attitudes, social dominance motives predict favorable reactions toward jokes targeting low-status outgroups through a subtle hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myth: cavalier humor beliefs (CHB). CHB characterizes a lighthearted, less serious, uncritical, and nonchalant approach toward humor that dismisses potential harm to others. As expected, CHB incorporates both positive (affiliative) and negative (aggressive) humor functions that together mask biases, correlating positively with prejudices and prejudice-correlates (including social dominance orientation [SDO]; Study 1). Across 3 studies in Canada, SDO and CHB predicted favorable reactions toward jokes disparaging Mexicans (low-status outgroup). Neither individual difference predicted neutral (nonintergroup) joke reactions, despite the jokes being equally amusing and more inoffensive overall. In Study 2, joke content targeting Mexicans, Americans (high-status outgroup), and Canadians (high-status ingroup) was systematically controlled. Although Canadians preferred jokes labeled as anti-American overall, an underlying subtle pattern emerged at the individual-difference level: Only those higher in SDO appreciated those jokes labeled as anti-Mexican (reflecting social dominance motives). In all studies, SDO predicted favorable reactions toward low-status outgroup jokes almost entirely through heightened CHB, a subtle yet potent legitimatizing myth that "justifies" expressions of group dominance motives. In Study 3, a pretest-posttest design revealed the implications of this justification process: CHB contributes to trivializing outgroup jokes as inoffensive (harmless), subsequently contributing to postjoke prejudice. The implications for humor in intergroup contexts are considered.     

Implicit race bias revisited: On the utility of task context in assessing implicit attitude strength

Decades of research have shown that many people harbor implicit attitudes that are positive toward Whites relative to Blacks. With some notable exceptions, these findings are almost always obtained using implicit attitude tasks that assess attitudes toward Whites and Black simultaneously. This makes it difficult to determine whether implicit race bias effects are the result of strong liking for Whites, dislike for Blacks, or both. The present article reports results from a study in which participants' automatic bias towards Blacks and Whites is assessed across multiple evaluative contexts. Results show consistent negative automatic attitudes towards Blacks, but there was considerable variability in participants' attitudes toward Whites. Consistent with the idea that strong attitudes are less contextually sensitive than weaker attitudes (e.g. Krosnick, 1988), it is concluded that participants harbor strong automatic bias against Blacks, but not strong favoritism for Whites. Implications for a context-centered approach to implicit attitude measurement are discussed.     

Do unto others as others have done unto you?: Perceiving sexism influences women's evaluations of stigmatized racial groups

The present research examines how making discrimination salient influences stigmatized group members' evaluations of other stigmatized groups. Specifically, three studies examine how salient sexism affects women's attitudes toward racial minorities. White women primed with sexism expressed more pro-White (relative to Black and Latino) self-report (Studies 1 and 3) and automatic (Study 2) intergroup bias, compared with White women who were not primed with sexism. Furthermore, group affirmation reduced the pro-White/antiminority bias White women expressed after exposure to sexism (Study 3), suggesting the mediating role of social identity threat. Overall, the results suggest that making discrimination salient triggers social identity threat, rather than a sense of common disadvantage, among stigmatized group members, leading to the derogation of other stigmatized groups. Implications for relations among members of different stigmatized groups are discussed.     

PREFERRING "HOUSEWIVES" TO "FEMINISTS"

Four studies are described outlining the favorability of attitudes toward women. In Study 1, participants indicated their attitudes toward women and men and their construal of the term "women". The results revealed that women were evaluated more favorably than men, but that male right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) who construed women as referring primarily to feminists were least favorable in their attitudes. In Study 2, participants indicated their attitudes toward both "housewives" and "feminists". The results revealed that feminists were evaluated less favorably than housewives, and that the most negative attitudes toward feminists were expressed by authoritarian men. Study 3 revealed that high-RWA males held more negative symbolic beliefs concerning feminists (i.e., beliefs that feminists failed to promote participants'values) and that these beliefs accounted for variation in attitudes among high RWAs and much of the RWA-attitude relation. Finally, Study 4 revealed that high RWAs perceived greater value dissimilarity between them-selves and feminists. The implications of the findings for future research are discussed.     

Promiscuous or Confident? Attitudinal Ambivalence Toward Condom Purchase1

This research examined attitudes toward condom purchase. Recent evidence is mixed. While some studies show attitudes have become more positive, other studies suggest that negative attitudes still dominate. Our own research examined the possibility that such attitudes may be ambivalent, meaning that the same individuals may simultaneously hold both positive and negative beliefs about condom purchase. The results confirmed this prediction. Study 1 showed that condom purchase evoked a combination of both negative beliefs about lifestyles and positive beliefs concerning the personal confidence of the consumer. These beliefs had competing effects on more global attitudes toward condom purchase. Specific beliefs about condoms were shown to provide the best indication of. whether participants actually used condoms. Study 2 employed standard measures of attitudinal ambivalence. The results conceptually replicated the finding that ambivalence was greater for those who purchased condoms compared to controls.     

The Gender Belief System,Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation,and Heterosexuals' Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men

We tested hypotheses drawn from three theoretical perspectives—gender belief system, authoritarianism, and social dominance—concerning heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Data from 122 male and 131 female heterosexual college students with mostly White, middle-class backgrounds indicated that constructs postulated by all three perspectives played important roles in predicting attitudes: Gender differences in attitudes toward lesbians and gay men were mediated by social dominance orientation and gender-role beliefs, indicating that gender role beliefs may act as legitimizing myths to justify antigay attitudes. Authoritarianism had both a direct relationship to attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and an indirect relationship mediated by gender-role beliefs.     

Is racial bias malleable? Whites' lay theories of racial bias predict divergent strategies for interracial interactions

How do Whites approach interracial interactions? We argue that a previously unexamined factor-beliefs about the malleability of racial bias-guides Whites' strategies for difficult interracial interactions. We predicted and found that those who believe racial bias is malleable favor learning-oriented strategies such as taking the other person's perspective and trying to learn why an interaction is challenging, whereas those who believe racial bias is fixed favor performance-oriented strategies such as overcompensating in the interaction and trying to end the interaction as quickly as possible. Four studies support these predictions. Whether measured (Studies 1, 3, and 4) or manipulated (Study 2), beliefs that racial bias is fixed versus malleable yielded these divergent strategies for difficult interracial interactions. Furthermore, beliefs about the malleability of racial bias are distinct from related constructs (e.g., prejudice and motivations to respond without prejudice; Studies 1, 3, and 4) and influence self-reported (Studies 1-3) and actual (Study 4) strategies in imagined (Studies 1-2) and real (Studies 3-4) interracial interactions. Together, these findings demonstrate that beliefs about the malleability of racial bias influence Whites' approaches to and strategies within interracial interactions.     

Why are some individuals not racially biased? Susceptibility to affective conditioning predicts nonprejudice toward blacks

Two studies investigated the psychological underpinnings of racial nonbias, defined as extremely low or null bias on measures of implicit and explicit racial attitudes. In Study 1, racially nonbiased Whites showed differential susceptibility to affective conditioning compared with subjects with greater bias. A significant two-way interaction emerged, indicating that nonbiased individuals were significantly less likely than other individuals to acquire negative affective associations to neutral stimuli in a classical conditioning paradigm, but were more likely than other individuals to acquire positive affective associations to neutral stimuli. This pattern of findings was replicated in Study 2, in which the identification of nonbiased Whites was facilitated by their nomination by an African American acquaintance. Implications for bias formation and prejudice reduction are discussed.     

I am against us? Unpacking cultural differences in ingroup favoritism via dialecticism

The authors proposed a novel explanation for cultural differences in ingroup favoritism (dialecticism) and tested this hypothesis across cultures/ethnicities, domains, and levels of analysis (explicit vs. implicit, cognitive vs. affective). Dialecticism refers to the cognitive tendency to tolerate contradiction and is more frequently found among East Asian than North American cultures. In Study 1, Chinese were significantly less positive, compared to European Americans, in their explicit judgments of family members. Study 2 investigated ingroup attitudes among Chinese, Latinos, and European Americans. Only Chinese participants showed significant in-group derogation, relative to the other groups, and dialecticism (Dialectical Self Scale) was associated with participants' in group attitudes. Study 3 manipulated dialectical versus linear lay beliefs; participants primed with dialecticism showed more negative, explicit ingroup attitudes. Although ingroup disfavoring tendencies were more prevalent among Chinese across studies, they may be a reflection of one's culturally based lay beliefs rather than deep-rooted negative feelings toward one's ingroup.     

Can values moderate the attitudes of right-wing authoritarians?

This investigation explored how right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and endorsement of egalitarian beliefs may interact to determine attitudes toward immigrants, homosexuals, and African Americans. Study 1 (N = 239) found that RWA was negatively related to evaluations of immigrants for those who weakly endorsed egalitarian beliefs. In contrast, endorsement of egalitarian beliefs was associated with positive evaluations of immigrants for both low and high RWAs. RWA did not interact with egalitarianism to determine attitudes toward homosexuals or African Americans. Study 2 analyzed data from the 1992 National Election Study and replicated these effects in a young adult (age < or = 24) sample (n = 102) using moral traditionalism as a proxy for RWA. Partial support for the hypotheses also was found in the adult (age > or = 25) sample (n = 1,257). It is concluded that when tradition and/or social norms offer unclear positions, endorsement of egalitarian beliefs influences the attitudes of authoritarians.     

"Prejudiced" behavior without prejudice? Beliefs about the malleability of prejudice affect interracial interactions

Prejudiced behavior is typically seen as emanating from prejudiced attitudes. Eight studies showed that majority-group members' beliefs about prejudice can create seemingly "prejudiced" behaviors above and beyond prejudice measured explicitly (Study 1b) and implicitly (Study 2). Those who believed prejudice was relatively fixed, rather than malleable, were less interested in interracial interactions (Studies 1a-1d), race- or diversity-related activities (Study 1a), and activities to reduce their prejudice (Study 3). They were also more uncomfortable in interracial, but not same-race, interactions (Study 2). Study 4 manipulated beliefs about prejudice and found that a fixed belief, by heightening concerns about revealing prejudice to oneself and others, depressed interest in interracial interactions. Further, though Whites who were taught a fixed belief were more anxious and unfriendly in an interaction with a Black compared with a White individual, Whites who were taught a malleable belief were not (Study 5). Implications for reducing prejudice and improving intergroup relations are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

Automatic social behavior as motivated preparation to interact

The authors propose that automatic social behavior may result from perceivers preparing to interact with primed social group members. In Study 1, participants primed with a disliked outgroup (gay men) showed evidence of interaction preparation (aggression) rather than direct stereotypic trait expression (passivity). In Study 2, participants with implicit positive attitudes toward the elderly walked more slowly after "elderly" priming, but participants with negative attitudes walked more quickly, results consistent with a preparatory account; the reverse was found priming "youth." Study 3 demonstrated that the accessibility of a primed category follows a pattern more consistent with that of goal-related constructs (including post-goal-fulfillment inhibition) than that of semantically primed constructs. Implications for the function of stored knowledge are discussed.     

Is Female Body Esteem Shaped by Benevolent Sexism?

The present investigation sought to determine whether women's body attitudes could be understood as a manifestation of benevolent sexism. Results indicated that women who held many benevolent sexist beliefs not only used more cosmetics when preparing for a romantic date than women who endorsed few such beliefs, but they also expressed more positive attitudes toward an aspect of female body esteem, sexual attractiveness, that can be altered using cosmetic products.     

Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction.

The present research examined how implicit racial associations and explicit racial attitudes of Whites relate to behaviors and impressions in interracial interactions. Specifically, the authors examined how response latency and self-report measures predicted bias and perceptions of bias in verbal and nonverbal behavior exhibited by Whites while they interacted with a Black partner. As predicted, Whites' self-reported racial attitudes significantly predicted bias in their verbal behavior to Black relative to White confederates. Furthermore, these explicit attitudes predicted how much friendlier Whites felt that they behaved toward White than Black partners. In contrast, the response latency measure significantly predicted Whites' nonverbal friendliness and the extent to which the confederates and observers perceived bias in the participants' friendliness.     

Open or close the door to the outgroup? Diversity beliefs moderate the impact of group boundary permeability on attitudes toward the outgroup

The present research investigated the moderating role of diversity beliefs with the aim of reconciling inconsistent findings regarding the impact of group boundary permeability on attitudes toward outgroup. In Study 1, all variables were measured with self‐report scales completed by Chinese participants. In Study 2, diversity beliefs were manipulated by randomly assigning Chinese participants to a high or low diversity belief condition. In Study 3, we replicated the moderating model with American participants. Results of all three studies indicated that diversity beliefs moderated the relationship between group boundary permeability and attitudes toward outgroup. Individuals with high diversity beliefs held more positive attitudes toward the outgroup when the group boundary was permeable (vs. impermeable). Conversely, individuals with low diversity beliefs held more negative attitudes toward the outgroup when the group boundary was permeable (vs. impermeable). These findings suggest that when the inflow of the outgroup members is inevitable, attitudes toward the outgroup may be effectively improved by increasing diversity beliefs.     

Impact of perceived consensus on stereotypes about obese people: a new approach for reducing bias.

In 3 experiments, the authors tested the effect of perceived social consensus on attitudes toward obese people. Participants completed self-report measures of attitudes toward obese people prior to and after manipulated consensus feedback depicting attitudes of others. In Study 1 (N=60), participants decreased negative and increased positive stereotypes after learning that others held more favorable attitudes toward obese people. In Study 2 (N=55), participants improved attitudes when they learned about favorable attitudes of obese people from an in-group versus an out-group source. In Study 3 (N=200), a consensus approach was compared with other stigma reduction methods. Social consensus feedback influenced participants' attitudes and beliefs about causes of obesity. Providing information about the uncontrollable causes of obesity and supposed scientific prevalence of traits also improved attitudes.