A model for predicting prejudice and stigma expression by understanding target perceptions: The effects of visibility,politicization, responsibility,and entitativity

The study of hostile orientations toward outgroups is divided into three main domains: (i) overt (explicit, old-fashioned, or hostile) prejudice; (ii) veiled (implicit, modern, aversive, or subtle) prejudice, and (iii) stigma. To date, there is no systematic account of which form of hostility is likely to be expressed toward members of particular target groups. We propose a model that integrates the two forms of prejudice and the concept of stigma into a single framework. The contingency model of stigma and prejudice expression postulates that overt or veiled prejudice is a function of an interaction of prevailing perceptions of target groups within their cultural context. There are four major target perceptions that influence prejudice expression through increasing threat perception: visibility, target politicization, responsibility, and entitativity. These target perceptions describe the process and the qualitative conditions that determine the expression of prejudice toward members of different groups and social categories.     

AMPing Racial Attitudes: Comparing the Power of Explicit and Implicit Racism Measures in 2008

In 2008, ANES included for the first time—along with standard explicit measures of old‐fashioned and symbolic racism—the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP), a relatively new implicit measure of racial attitudes. This article examines the extent to which four different measures of racial prejudice (three explicit and one implicit) predict public opinion during and after the 2008 election, including Americans' views towards several racial policy issues, their evaluations of, and feelings toward, Barack Obama, and their attitudes toward a Black president in general. Oversamples of African American and Latino respondents in the 2008 ANES enable us to broaden our tests of these measures beyond traditional White samples. We find that racial prejudice played an important role for all racial/ethnic groups but that the traditional explicit measures of racism are by far the stronger predictors for all of our dependent variables (compared to the new implicit measure) for both White and Black respondents. Surprisingly, the AMP adds clear explanatory power only to models in the Latino sample.     

Employment discrimination: the role of implicit attitudes, motivation, and a climate for racial bias

This study is an attempt to replicate and extend research on employment discrimination by A. P. Brief and colleagues (A. P. Brief, J. Dietz, R. R. Cohen, S. D. Pugh, & J. B. Vaslow, 2000). More specifically, the authors attempted (a) to constructively replicate the prior finding that an explicit measure of modern racism would interact with a corporate climate for racial bias to predict discrimination in a hiring context and (b) to extend this finding through the measurement of implicit racist attitudes and motivation to control prejudice. Although the authors were unable to replicate the earlier interaction, they did illustrate that implicit racist attitudes interacted with a climate for racial bias to predict discrimination. Further, results partially illustrate that motivation to control prejudice moderates the relationship between explicit and implicit attitudes. Taken together, the findings illustrate the differences between implicit and explicit racial attitudes in predicting discriminatory behavior.     

A two-dimensional model that employs explicit and implicit attitudes to characterize prejudice

In the authors' 2-dimensional model of prejudice, explicit and implicit attitudes are used to create 4 profiles: truly low prejudiced (TLP: double lows), aversive racists (AR: low explicit modern racism/high implicit prejudice), principled conservatives (PC: high explicit modern racism/low implicit prejudice), and modern racists (MR: double highs). Students completed an Asian Modern Racism Scale and an Asian/White Implicit Association Test. The authors compared the 4 groups' prejudice-related ideologies (i.e., egalitarianism/humanism and social conservatism) and economic/political conservatism (Study 1, N=132). The authors also tested whether MR but not PC (Study 2, N=65) and AR but not TLP (Study 3, N=143) are more likely to negatively evaluate an Asian target when attributional ambiguity is high (vs. low). In support of the model, TLP did not hold prejudice-related ideologies and did not discriminate; AR were low in conservatism and demonstrated the attributional-ambiguity effect; PC did not strongly endorse prejudice-related ideologies and did not discriminate; MR strongly endorsed prejudice-related ideologies, were conservative, and demonstrated the attributional-ambiguity effect. The authors discuss implications for operationalizing and understanding the nature of prejudice.     

The Nature of Contemporary Prejudice: Insights from Aversive Racism

Within the United States, declines in the overt expression of racial prejudice over several decades have given way to near universal endorsement of the principles of racial equality as a core cultural value. Yet, evidence of persistent and substantial disparities between Blacks and Whites remain. Here, we review research that demonstrates how the actions of even well-intentioned and ostensibly non-prejudiced individuals can inadvertently contribute to these disparities through subtle biases in decision making and social interactions. We argue that current racial attitudes of Whites toward Blacks in the United States are fundamentally ambivalent, characterized by a widespread contemporary form of racial prejudice, aversive racism , that is manifested in subtle and indirect ways, and illustrate its operation across a wide range of settings, from employment and legal decisions, to group problem-solving and everyday helping behavior. We conclude by describing research aimed at combating these biases and identify new avenues for future research.     

Aversive racism in Britain: the use of inadmissible evidence in legal decisions

The aversive racism framework (S. L. Gaertner & J. F. Dovidio, 1986 ) suggests that bias against Blacks is most likely to be expressed by Whites when it can be explained or justified along non‐racial grounds. The present experiment adopted a 2 (Evidence: admissible vs. inadmissible) × 2 (Defendant Race: White vs. Black) between subjects design, asking White participants, whose self‐reported prejudice was assessed, to judge a legal case. As predicted, increased guilt ratings and longer sentencing recommendations were forwarded for the Black (vs. White) defendant only when DNA evidence linking the defendant to the crime had previously been ruled inadmissible. This result was not qualified by self‐report racial attitudes. The implications for evidence inadmissibility in interracial contexts are considered, along with the repercussions of finding experimental evidence of aversive racism outside of North America. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Impact of Racism on Ethnic Minority Mental Health

ABSTRACT— A problem in ethnic minority mental health that can be solved in the foreseeable future is understanding how subtle and covert forms of racism affect psychological health of racial minorities. Although scientific psychology has generated a large body of literature on racial prejudice, stereotypes, intergroup attitudes, and racial bias and their often implicit and automatic nature, relatively little is known about the effects of these subtle racial bias on minority individuals. Following a selective review of recent developments in experimental psychology and multicultural psychology, I suggest some promising approaches and opportunities for future integration that would advance the field.     

Racial attitudes in response to thoughts of white privilege

Thinking about the benefits gained from a privileged group membership can threaten social identity and evoke justification of the existing status difference between the ingroup and a disadvantaged group. For White Americans, racial privilege may be justified by concurring with modern racist attitudes. In Experiment 1, White Americans randomly assigned to think about White privilege expressed greater modern racism compared to those assigned to think about White disadvantage or a race‐irrelevant topic. In Experiment 2, we found that increased racism in response to thoughts of White privilege was limited to those who highly identified with their racial category. In contrast, when White racial identification was sufficiently low, thoughts of White privilege reliably reduced modern racism. We discuss the implications of these findings for the meaning of modern racism and prejudice reduction. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Looking at others through implicitly or explicitly prejudiced eyes

It is well known that we utilize internalized representations (or schemas) to direct our eyes when exploring visual stimuli. Interestingly, our schemas for human faces are known to reflect systematic differences that are consistent with one's level of racial prejudice. However, whether one's level or type of racial prejudice can differentially regulate how we visually explore faces that are the target of prejudice is currently unknown. Here, White participants varying in their level of implicit or explicit prejudice viewed Black faces and White faces (with the latter serving as a control) while having their gaze behaviour recorded with an eye-tracker. The results show that, regardless of prejudice type (i.e., implicit or explicit), participants high in racial prejudice examine faces differently than those low in racial prejudice. Specifically, individuals high in explicit racial prejudice were more likely to fixate on the mouth region of Black faces when compared to individuals low in explicit prejudice, and exhibited less consistency in their scanning of faces irrespective of race. On the other hand, individuals high in implicit racial prejudice tended to focus on the region between the eyes, regardless of face race. It therefore seems that racial prejudice guides target-race specific patterns of looking behaviour, and may also contribute to general patterns of looking behaviour when visually exploring human faces.     

The Crystallization of Contemporary Racial Prejudice across the Lifespan

The conventional wisdom is that racial prejudice remains largely stable through adulthood. However, very little is known about the development of contemporary racial attitudes like symbolic racism. The growing crystallization of symbolic racism through the lifespan is tested using two data sets that measure the stability, consistency, and predictive validity of symbolic racism in samples ranging in age from young adults to the elderly. The results provide evidence that the crystallization of symbolic racism generally takes on a curvilinear trajectory across the lifespan, showing that it is already largely crystallized by voting age, that it continues to crystallize still further through adulthood and that it begins to decline in coherence in late adulthood. The results generally provide evidence confirming early speculations of symbolic racism theorists concerning the crystallization of symbolic racism across the lifespan and are discussed in terms of different theoretical perspectives on the relationship between aging and attitudes more generally.     

The Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale

The concept of symbolic racism was originally proposed 30 years ago. Much research has been done and the society itself has changed, yet many of the original items measuring symbolic racism remain in use. The primary objective of this paper is to present and evaluate an updated scale of symbolic racism. The scale proves to be reliable and internally coherent. It has discriminant validity, being distinctively different from both older forms of racial attitudes and political conservatism, although with a base in both. It has predictive validity, explaining whites' racial policy preferences considerably better than do traditional racial attitudes or political predispositions. Evidence is presented of its usefulness for both college student and general adult population samples, as well as for minority populations. Data using this scale contradict several critiques of the symbolic racism construct (most of which are speculative rather than based on new data) concerning the consistency of its conceptualization and measurement, the coherence of the symbolic racism belief system, possible artifacts in its influence over whites' racial policy preferences (due to content overlap between the measures of independent and dependent variables), and its differentiation from nonracial conservatism and old-fashioned racism.     

Prejudice against Australian Aborigines: old-fashioned and modern forms

Prejudice is a pervasive and destructive social problem. Theories of prejudice distinguish between old-fashioned and modern forms. The former is an open rejection of minority group members; the latter is subtle and covert, with a veneer of outgroup acceptance. The present study examines the distinction in the context of contemporary attitudes to Australian Aborigines. Separate measures of each, and of other variables, were included in a random survey of the Perth metropolitan area in 1994. The two forms of prejudice were correlated (r=0.55), but factor analysis revealed that the two constructs are separable. Further, they were distributed differently in the population, with modern prejudice being more prevalent than old-fashioned prejudice (57.9 per cent scoring above the midpoint on the modern scale, and only 21.2 per cent on the old-fashioned scale). Modern prejudice was predicted more strongly by social psychological variables (R²=0.51) than was old-fashioned prejudice (R²=0.30), and the pattern of results from regression analyses differed for the two types of prejudice. Overall, the results confirm the distinction between old-fashioned and modern forms of prejudice, but indicate that the two are conceptually and empirically related to one another. Comparisons with earlier research reveal the declining prevalence of old-fashioned prejudice, but indicate prejudice is still a major social problem. ©1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Contemporary racism in australia: the experiences of Aborigines

In recent decades, social psychologists have suggested that contemporary racism is more subtle in nature than it had been in previous times. However, such theorizing has been from the perspective of the perpetrators. The present study follows a small number of other studies that have focused on the perspective of the victims of racism. It investigated the experiences of racism reported by 34 Aboriginal Australians during semi-structured, open-ended interviews. The data suggest that racism is experienced commonly and frequently by the participants and that much of it is overt or old-fashioned rather than subtle and modern. It is argued that if the data are reflective of what happens in intergroup encounters, social scientists may have embraced the theories of modern racism too readily. This may have contributed to the maintenance of social institutions that impact negatively on the minority populations in the community.     

Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation: Relationships With Various Forms of Racism

Previous research revealed that right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are strongly related to racism. However, this line of inquiry neglected to study these relationships for various forms of racism. In Study 1, it was found in a Flemish heterogeneous adult sample ( N = 146) that RWA and SDO bore about equally strong relationships with biological racism, symbolic racism, ethnocentrism, and aversive racism. Study 2 revealed in a heterogeneous adult sample ( N = 176), also administered in Flanders (Belgium), that RWA was positively related to both subtle and blatant prejudice, whereas SDO was positively related only to blatant prejudice. Moreover, RWA differentiates better between different types of racists composed on the basis of scores on the racism dimensions. The implications of these results for RWA- and SDO-based prejudice are discussed.     

Attitudes in the fiber of everyday life: the discourse of racial evaluation and the lived experience of desegregation

This article critically reviews the social-psychological literature on race attitudes, which has assumed that the prejudicial status of any expression is determined by the underlying psychological attitude that motivated it. Variation and inconsistency in individuals' attitudinal expressions and disagreement over how to measure prejudice have bedeviled attitude research. Contemporary theories of racial attitudes (symbolic racism, self-presentation, aversive racism) have responded to this problem by explaining how, when, and why attitudes vary and by proposing research paradigms for isolating prejudiced from nonprejudiced expressions. The authors argue that research in this area may be enhanced by the use of qualitative methods that place fewer constraints on the expression of racial attitudes and variability than quantitative methods do. Using empirical materials from a South African case study, the authors show that a focus on attitudinal discourse and the lived experience of desegregation allow researchers to investigate attitudes as social practices.     

Brain Gain to Brain Waste: Individual Biases, Prejudice, and Discounting of Migrant Skills

The present study replicated Esses et al. (2006) study on the role of prejudice in discounting of immigrant skills in the Australian context. It examined the effects of subtle prejudice on discounting of migrants’ foreign acquired credentials. Eighty-one students at an Australian university participated in the study. Design incorporated three experimental conditions, manipulating location, and birth of prospective job applicants. The independent variables were modern prejudice score, place of birth, and location of training (Australia, UK, and Lebanon). Participants rated resumes of hypothetical applicants on the dependent variables (person-job and person-organization fit). Results partially supported the hypotheses, with the Lebanese applicant rated significantly less favorable than both the UK and the Australian applicant. Findings imply that foreign skills and credentials were used as an ostensibly legitimate basis for the discounting of the visible minority applicant supporting the theory of aversive racism. Results also provide evidence for suitability of the justification–suppression model as a framework for comprehending contemporary issues in Western society such discounting migrant skills.     

The association of racial attitudes and spiritual beliefs in post-apartheid South Africa

Previous research has investigated the complex association between religious beliefs and racism. Many studies have found that fundamentalist religious beliefs are positively associated with racial prejudice among European and European American populations. However, few studies have examined whether this association is found in other cultures or whether the association also characterizes spiritual beliefs. Data from 493 South African university students from three racial backgrounds revealed significant differences among the groups. A positive association between fundamentalism and racial prejudice was found among participants, but general spiritual beliefs were negatively associated with racist attitudes. The results emphasize the need to address contextual factors that influence the association between religious beliefs and racism within a given culture.     

“I'm Not Prejudiced,but . . .”: Compensatory Egalitarianism in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary

The historic 2008 Democratic presidential primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton posed a difficult choice for egalitarian White voters, and many commentators speculated that the election outcome would reflect pitting the effects of racism against sexism ( Steinem, 2008 ). Because self‐reported prejudices may be untrustworthy, we used the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to assess White adults’ (1) condemnation of prejudices, and (2) attitudes toward the candidates in relation to voting decisions, as part of an online survey. Results supported the proposed compensatory egalitarianism process, such that Whites’ voting choice was consistent with their implicit candidate preference, but in an effort to remain egalitarian, participants compensated for this preference by automatically condemning prejudice toward the other candidate's group. Additional findings showed that this process was moderated by participants’ ethnicity and level of prejudice, as expected. Specifically, compensatory egalitarianism occurred primarily among Whites and individuals low in explicit prejudice. Implications for candidate support, aversive racism theory, and implicit compensation processes are discussed.     

Classical and modern racial prejudice: a study of attitudes toward immigrants in Sweden

In two studies we develop and validate a Classical — overt or direct — and a Modern — covert or subtle — Racial Prejudice Scale, concerning attitudes toward immigrants, for a Swedish (Scandinavian) context. Further, we examine whether these two forms of prejudice are distinguishable. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that, although highly correlated, classical and modern racial prejudice are distinguishable. This conclusion was also supported by various construct validations. The findings are discussed in relation to other studies that compare the content and structure of modern and classical racism. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Is the attribution of cultural differences to minorities an expression of racial prejudice?

The social psychological literature considers two main perspectives on the study of perceived cultural differences between majorities and minorities: one proposes that perception of cultural differences is an antecedent of prejudice and another states that the attribution of cultural differences to minorities is already a hidden expression of racial prejudice. This paper offers further support to this latter perspective. One hundred and ninety-four participants answered a questionnaire measuring (1) general racist belief; (2) cultural differences attributed to Black people (hetero-ethnicization); (3) the asymmetric attribution of secondary and primary emotions to the in-group and to Black people (infra-humanization); (4) the asymmetric attribution of natural and cultural traits to in-group members and to Black people (ontologization); and (5) negative evaluation of this social category. The general racist belief scale was not anchored in a specific group and measured the belief in the inferiority of certain social groups or peoples based on biological or cultural factors. Relationships between the scales were analysed through a set of Structural Equation Models. According to the predictions, results showed that the attribution of cultural differences is a dimension of prejudice. Results also showed that attribution of cultural differences, negative evaluation of Black people, ontologization, and infra-humanization were different dimensions of a common latent factor that can be identified as racial prejudice; and that prejudice was predicted by general racist belief. Results are discussed in the light of the study of the impact of perceived cultural differences on intergroup relations and in the light of the "new racism" approaches.