Social desirability of subtle and blatant prejudice scales

The present paper analyzes the relation between the measurement of subtle and blatant prejudice proposed by Pettigrew and Meertens in 1995 and the tendency to give socially desirable responses. It also tests whether items that measure subtle prejudice are judged as more socially desirable than those that measure blatant prejudice. Data were obtained from two groups, one of 497 Italian high school students and one of 77 university students. In the first case, the analysis concerns the relation between the prejudice scores and scores on a shortened form of Marlowe and Crowne's Social Desirability Scale. In the second case, we analyzed the social desirability judgments expressed on single items of the Petrigrew and Meertens scales. Analyses indicate that (1) neither Subtle nor Blatant Prejudice scores correlate with the tendency to give socially desirable responses and (2) when the items of the two prejudice scales are placed in order on the social desirability continuum, with very few exceptions the Blatant Prejudice items are situated at the not socially acceptable pole and Subtle Prejudice items at the socially acceptable pole.     

Prediction and prejudice

Evidence that supports a theory may be available to the scientist who constructs the theory and used as a guide to that construction, or it may only be discovered in the course of testing the theory. The central claim of this essay is that information about whether the evidence was accommodated or predicted affects the rational degree of confidence one ought to have in the theory. Only when the evidence is accommodated is there some reason to believe that the theoretical system was ‘fudged’ to fit the evidence in a way that weakens support. This weakening is an objective matter, but not one that can be conclusively determined by examining the contents of the theory and its logical relationship to the evidence. Consequently, there is less reason to believe a theory on the basis of that evidence when it is known that the evidence was accommodated than there would be if it was known instead that the same evidence had been predicted.     

Stereotypes and prejudice in the blood: Sucrose drinks reduce prejudice and stereotyping

Prejudice and stereotyping cause social problems and intergroup tension. The current work examined whether bolstering self-control by giving participants glucose would reduce stereotype use for an impression formation task. Previous work has demonstrated that self-control depends on biologically expensive brain processes that consume energy derived from glucose in the bloodstream. In the current study, glucose was manipulated via lemonade sweetened with either sugar or Splenda. Compared to the control group, the participants in the glucose condition used fewer stereotypes when writing an essay about a day in the life of a gay man. In addition, high-prejudice participants in the glucose condition used fewer derogatory statements in their essays than high-prejudice participants in the control condition. The findings are discussed in terms of the importance of self-control resources in the effective regulation of prejudice and stereotyping.     

Partiality and prejudice in trusting

You can trust your friends. You should trust your friends. Not all of your friends all of the time: you can reasonably trust different friends to different degrees, and in different domains. Still, we often trust our friends, and it is often reasonable to do so. Why is this? In this paper I explore how and whether friendship gives us reasons to trust our friends, reasons which may outstrip or conflict with our epistemic reasons. In the final section, I will sketch some related questions concerning trust based on the trustee’s race, gender, or other social identity.     

Facing prejudice: implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat

We propose that social attitudes, and in particular implicit prejudice, bias people's perceptions of the facial emotion displayed by others. To test this hypothesis, we employed a facial emotion change-detection task in which European American participants detected the offset (Study 1) or onset (Study 2) of facial anger in both Black and White targets. Higher implicit (but not explicit) prejudice was associated with a greater readiness to perceive anger in Black faces, but neither explicit nor implicit prejudice predicted anger perceptions regarding similar White faces. This pattern indicates that European Americans high in implicit racial prejudice are biased to perceive threatening affect in Black but not White faces, suggesting that the deleterious effects of stereotypes may take hold extremely early in social interaction.     

The protective role of self-determined prejudice regulation in the relationship between intergroup threat and prejudice

Although plenty of evidence supports the link between intergroup threat and prejudice, few intrapersonal moderators of this association have been investigated. One potentially important moderator is the source of motivation underlying prejudice regulation. In Study 1, we examined whether self-determined prejudice regulation reduces the impact of intergroup threat on various outgroup attitude variables (e.g., modern racism, outgroup affect, etc.). Results suggest that being self-determined in one??s motivation to regulate prejudice buffers the impact of intergroup threat on prejudice, whereas regulating prejudice primarily for non-self-determined reasons serves to exacerbate the threat-prejudice effect. In Study 2, a cross-sectional corroboration of this interaction was obtained using structural equation modeling, revealing that the threat-prejudice link differed significantly across groups of prejudice regulators. The role of self-determination in reducing the harmful effects of intergroup threat is discussed, and implications for prejudice reduction and diversity education are identified.     

Cultural pluralism and prejudice reduction

Predictions derived from models of cultural pluralism and cultural assimilation were tested. Previous research has shown that highlighting differences between ethnic groups, in conjunction with self-focus, can reduce prejudice. The presented research tested the following questions: (a) does highlighting differences function to reduce prejudice between groups that are dissimilar to each other as well as between those that are highly similar, (b) is prejudice reduction due to distinctiveness a function of the lessened ingroup positivity or lessened outgroup negativity, (c) does making distinctiveness salient reduce prejudice toward only the distinctive outgroups or to outgroups more generically, and (d) does the manipulation equally impact African American, Mexican American, Mexican National, and White American participants? Results demonstrated that highlighting differences while simultaneously focusing on the self reduces prejudice, although similarity mediates the relationship with those who are perceived as more different. Distinctiveness also reduced outgroup negativity and generalized to other outgroups. Finally, the manipulation reduced prejudice only for White Americans, Mexican Americans, and Mexican Nationals.     

Relationships between gender self-esteem,sexual prejudice,and trans prejudice in cisgender heterosexual college students

Our understanding of sexual prejudice, or prejudice against gay men, lesbian women, bisexual people, and other sexual minorities, has improved substantially over the last few decades. Less is known about the factors that predict trans prejudice, or prejudice against trans people. Using the framework of social identity theory, we examined the relationship between gender self-esteem, sexual prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women, and trans prejudice in a sample of 391 self-identified cisgender heterosexual students from a Midwestern university in the United States. Compared to women, men reported more sexual prejudice, trans prejudice, more prejudice toward gay men than lesbian women, and more violence toward, teasing of, and discomfort around trans women than trans men. Whereas both men and women reported more teasing of trans women than of trans men, men reported more discomfort around trans women and women reported more discomfort around trans men. Gender self-esteem significantly predicted sexual prejudice and trans prejudice in men but not women. Consistent with other research, our results indicate that men's sexual prejudice and trans prejudice may be motivated by similar factors, whereas the predictors of women's prejudice may be more specific to the type of prejudice.     

Gender differences in implicit prejudice

In three experiments (n=131), we examined gender differences in implicit (and explicit) racial prejudice employing priming of immigrant and Swedish facial photographs without attention or without awareness. Implicit prejudice was defined as the degree of negativity expressed toward a person described in a subsequent ambiguous story in an impression formation task. We found, contrary to our hypothesis, that women displayed systematically higher implicit prejudice than men in all three experiments, although men scored higher on explicit prejudice than women. The results are discussed against the background of related prejudice research, the dissociation of implicit and explicit prejudice, and gender differences in cognitive functioning, especially in the processing of pictorial stimuli.