But I'm No Bigot: How Prejudiced White Americans Maintain Unprejudiced Self-Images

"Say Her Name": Symbolic Racism and Officer Valuing Predict White Americans' Reactions to the Fatal Police Shooting of a Black Woman

A report entitled Say Her Name: Resisting Police Brutality against Black Women underscores the paucity of research examining police violence toward Black women. This study focused on how valuing a White police officer and symbolic racism moderate reactions when the officer fatally shoots a Black or White woman during a traffic stop. At high levels of officer valuing, symbolic racism was positively associated with perceptions the victim presented a threat to the officer, but negatively associated with support for punishing the officer and perceived victim compliance; these associations were stronger when the victim was Black relative to White. At low officer valuing levels, there was no variability in the link between symbolic racism and the outcome variables as a function of victim race. Implications for bias in judicial outcomes for the victim and officer are discussed.

What Underlies the Opposition to Trans-Inclusive Policies? The Role of Concerns About Male Violence Versus Attitudes Toward Trans People

Transgender women's access to women-only spaces is controversial. Arguments against trans-inclusive policies often focus on cisgender women's safety from male violence, despite little evidence to suggest that such policies put cisgender women at risk. Across seven studies using U.S. and U.K. participants (N = 3,864), we investigate whether concerns about male violence versus attitudes toward trans people are a better predictor of support for trans-inclusive policies and whether these factors align with the reasons given by opponents and supporters regarding their policy views. We find that opponents of these policies do not accurately report their reasons for opposition: Specifically, while opponents claim that concerns about male violence are the primary reason driving their opposition, attitudes toward transgender people more strongly predicted policy views. These results highlight the limitations of focusing on overt discourse and emphasize the importance of investigating psychological mechanisms underlying policy support.

Defensiveness Toward IAT Feedback Predicts Willingness to Engage in Anti-Bias Behaviors

People who are more defensive about their feedback on the Race-Attitudes Implicit Association Test (IAT) are less willing to engage in anti-bias behaviors. Extending on this work, we statistically clarified defensiveness constructs to predict willingness to engage in anti-bias behaviors among people who received pro-White versus no-bias IAT feedback. We replicated the finding that U.S. Americans are generally defensive toward pro-White IAT feedback, and that more defensiveness predicts less willingness to engage in anti-bias behaviors. However, people who believed their pro-White IAT feedback was an inaccurate reflection of their "true attitudes" were more willing to engage in anti-bias behaviors compared with people who received no-bias IAT feedback. These results better illuminate the defensiveness construct suggesting that receiving self-threatening feedback about bias may motivate people's willingness to engage in anti-bias behaviors in different ways depending on how people respond to that feedback.

"We're tolerant and they're prejudiced": Same-sex marriage supporters' and opponents' perceptions of supportive and oppositional claims

The current research examined the proposition that debates over same-sex marriage are characterized, at least in part, by conflicting understandings about what is and is not prejudiced, normative and true. Toward this end, Australians' (N = 415) prejudice judgements of supportive and oppositional statements toward same-sex marriage were measured and analysed with analyses of variance. Unsurprisingly, same-sex marriage supporters perceived a supportive statement as unprejudiced, tolerant, truthful, in pursuit of individual liberty, and normative; oppositional statements were seen in precisely the opposite manner. Same-sex marriage opponents, however, disagreed, instead judging an oppositional statement as unprejudiced, tolerant, truthful, in pursuit of individual liberty, and normative; it was a supportive statement that was seen as relatively prejudiced. These effects remained even after controlling for independent expressions of in-group favouritism. The current data align with a collective naïve realism perspective, in which group members see their own views as veridical and those of disagreeing others as biased. We argue that prejudice-reduction efforts must be instantiated to facilitate a common in-group identity between supporters and opponents to enable consensus over facts and, ultimately, what is and is not prejudice. Without this consensus, each side of the political debate may simply hurl the pejorative label of "prejudice" against the other, with likely little opportunity for social influence and social change.

Discovering the Roots: A Qualitative Analysis of Medical Students Exploring Their Unconscious Obesity Bias

Phenomenon: Bias against individuals with obesity in medical settings has negative implications for patients, including stigmatization, poor health outcomes, and reduced healthcare utilization. This study explored reflections of medical students when confronted with their own implicit obesity bias.Approach: A group of 188 pre-clinical second-year medical students from George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences completed the Weight Implicit Association Test (IAT) in 2020 and were instructed to write a reflective response based on their results. Participants reflected upon their preferences ("fat" vs. "thin") and described the factors that influenced their perceptions of obesity. Inductive coding techniques were used to generate themes from medical students' responses using Dedoose Version 8.3.35 (SocioCultural Research Consultants LLC, Los Angeles, California).Findings: Regarding IAT results, 7% of medical students preferred "fat over thin," 14% had no preference, and 78% preferred "thin over fat." Reflection themes highlighted medical students' difficulty accepting IAT results, perspectives on the origins of obesity in individuals, personal and family challenges with obesity and body image, medical training's perceived influence on bias, reservations about discussing obesity with patients, and desires to change current and future practices.Insights: Many medical students expressed a desire to provide optimal care for patients of all weight classes despite demonstrating a strong unconscious bias against individuals with obesity on the IAT. Medical school should provide targeted opportunities to acknowledge and mitigate obesity bias by expanding on medical students' pre-established and often harmful understandings of obesity and highlighting the complexities of this disease. Such training would better equip medical students to facilitate successful interactions with patients as future physicians.

Support for Native-Themed Mascots and Opposition to Political Correctness

Despite the well-documented harmful effects of Native-themed mascots, Native-themed mascots have many supporters who decry the politically correct efforts to remove these mascots. Although ostensibly unrelated to race/racism, we reasoned that invoking anti-PC attitudes allow prejudiced people to indirectly support Native-themed mascots while minimizing the appearance of being biased. Three studies ( N = 587) found that anti-Native bias predicted anti-PC attitudes and, in turn, Native-themed mascot support. In Studies 2 and 3, participants varying in anti-PC attitudes considered a university changing their Native-themed mascot for PC or non-PC reasons. Anti-PC attitudes predicted opposition to changing Native-themed mascots in both conditions. However, the effect of anti-PC attitudes was stronger in the PC condition where social justice norms were salient. These results suggest that, for many, anti-PC attitudes reflect more than just opposition to political correctness and are used by prejudiced people to indirectly defend controversial mascots without appearing prejudiced.

Measuring Racial Discrimination Remotely: A Contemporary Review of Unobtrusive Measures

Social-science researchers have increasingly moved from conducting their studies in a face-to-face format to an online format. Although new and innovative remote platforms afford researchers generalizability and scale, many of these platforms also tend to solicit socially desirable responses. This pattern of socially desirable responding is evident in examinations of racial discrimination, in which participants are particularly determined to present themselves as ethical and moral. In the current article, we rectify the concern between remote platforms and inauthentic participant responses by reviewing unobtrusive measures of racial discrimination. First, we conceptualize unobtrusive measures as measurements that assess a participant's discriminatory action without the participant's knowledge that the specific discriminatory action is under observation. Next, we review the landscape of unobtrusive studies conducted within three broad categories-audit, helping, and friendly interaction-and discuss how these measures have changed over time. Finally, we discuss how to adapt classic face-to-face measures to remote platforms and provide recommendations for implementing unobtrusive measures into remote examinations of discrimination.

When are intergroup attitudes judged as free speech and when as prejudice? A social identity analysis of attitudes towards immigrants

Although anti-immigrant attitudes continue to be expressed around the world, identifying these attitudes as prejudice, truth or free speech remains contested. This contestation occurs, in part, because of the absence of consensually agreed-upon understandings of what prejudice is. In this context, the current study sought to answer the question, "what do people understand to be prejudice?" Participants read an intergroup attitude expressed by a member of their own group (an "in-group" member) or another group (an "out-group" member). This was followed by an interpretation of the attitude as either "prejudiced" or "free speech." This interpretation was also made by in-group or an out-group member. Subsequent prejudice judgements were influenced only by the group membership of the person expressing the initial attitude: the in-group member's attitude was judged to be less prejudiced than the identical attitude expressed by an out-group member. Participants' judgements of free speech, however, were more complex: in-group attitudes were seen more as free speech than out-group attitudes, except when an in-group member interpreted those attitudes as prejudice. These data are consistent with the Social Identity Approach to intergroup relations, and have implications for the processes by which intergroup attitudes become legitimised as free speech instead of prejudice.

Implicit Bias and the Feedback Paradox: Exploring How Health Professionals Engage With Feedback While Questioning Its Credibility

PURPOSE

Learners and practicing health professionals may dismiss emotionally charged feedback related to self, yet little research has examined how to address feedback that threatens an individual's identity. The implicit association test (IAT) provides feedback to individuals regarding their implicit biases. Anticipating feedback about implicit bias might be emotionally charged for mental health professionals, this study explored their experience of taking the IAT and receiving their results, to better understand the challenges of identity-threatening feedback.

METHOD

The researchers sampled 32 psychiatry nurses, psychiatrists, and psychiatric residents at Western University in Ontario, Canada, after they completed the mental illness IAT and received their results. Using constructivist grounded theory, semistructured interviews were conducted from April to October 2017 regarding participants' experience of taking the IAT. Using constant comparative analysis, transcripts were iteratively coded and analyzed for results.

RESULTS

While most participants critiqued the IAT and questioned its credibility, many also described the experience of receiving feedback about their implicit biases as positive or neutral. Most justified their implicit biases while acknowledging the need to better manage them.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight a feedback paradox, calling into question assumptions regarding self-related feedback. Participants' reactions to the IAT suggest that potentially threatening self-related feedback may still be useful to participants who question its credibility. Further exploration of how the feedback conversation influences engagement with self-related feedback is needed.

Examining the asymmetry in judgments of racism in self and others

Across three experiments, participants were provided with a list of racist behaviors that purportedly were enacted from a fellow student but in fact were based on the participants' own behaviors. People consistently evaluated themselves as less racist than this comparison other, even though this other's racist behaviors were identical to their own. Studies 2a and 2b demonstrate this effect is quite robust and even occurs under social pressure and social consensus conditions in which participants were free to express their racial biases. Thus, it appears that people are less likely to base their racist trait ratings on behavioral evidence when evaluating themselves compared to when they are evaluating another. Taken together, this work provides evidence for the consistency and robustness of self-enhanced social comparisons as applied to the trait domain of racism. Further, this work sheds insight into why people deny they are racist when they act racist.

Social psychological research on prejudice as collective action supporting emergent ingroup members

Why does social psychological research on prejudice change across time? We argue that scientific change is not simply a result of empirical evidence, technological developments, or social controversies, but rather emerges out of social change-driven shifts in how researchers categorize themselves and others within their larger societies. As mainstream researchers increasingly recategorize former outgroup members as part of a novel ingroup, prejudice research shifts in support of emergent ingroup members against their emergent outgroup opponents. Although social change-driven science results in valuable opportunities for researchers, it also results in significant risks for research - collective, scientific biases in the inclusion and exclusion of social groups in prejudice research that are not readily detected or managed by traditional controls. We present the Emergent Ingroup Model (EIM) to encourage reflection on shared biases, as well as to spark a broader conversation on how to strengthen our field for a rapidly changing and increasingly global world.

The Actual Versus Idealized Self: Exploring Responses to Feedback About Implicit Bias in Health Professionals

PURPOSE

Implicit bias can adversely affect health disparities. The implicit association test (IAT) is a prompt to stimulate reflection; however, feedback about bias may trigger emotions that reduce the effectiveness of feedback interventions. Exploring how individuals process feedback about implicit bias may inform bias recognition and management curricula. The authors sought to explore how health professionals perceive the influence of the experience of taking the IAT and receiving their results.

METHOD

Using constructivist grounded theory methodology, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with 21 pediatric physicians and nurses at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, Ontario, Canada, from September 2015 to November 2016 after they completed the mental illness IAT and received their result. Data were analyzed using constant comparative procedures to work toward axial coding and development of an explanatory theory.

RESULTS

When provided feedback about their implicit attitudes, participants described tensions between acceptance and justification, and between how IAT results relate to idealized and actual personal and professional identity. Participants acknowledged desire for change while accepting that change is difficult. Most participants described the experience of taking the IAT and receiving their result as positive, neutral, or interesting.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings contribute to emerging understandings of the relationship between emotions and feedback and may offer potential mediators to reconcile feedback that reveals discrepancies between an individual's actual and idealized identities. These results suggest that reflection informed by tensions between actual and aspirational aspects of professional identity may hold potential for implicit bias recognition and management curricula.

Changing Norms Following the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

The 2016 presidential election was characterized by the remarkable expression of prejudice toward a range of groups. In two closely related studies ( N = 388; 196 supporting Trump, 192 Clinton), we measured (1) perceptions of social norms toward prejudice or (2) people’s own levels of prejudice toward 19 social groups, shortly before and after the election. Some groups were targeted by the Trump campaign (e.g., Muslims, immigrants) and some were not (e.g., atheists, alcoholics). Participants saw an increase in the acceptability of prejudice toward groups Trump targeted but little shift in untargeted groups. By contrast, participants reported a personal drop in Trump-targeted prejudice, probably due changing comparison standards, with no change in prejudice toward untargeted groups. The 2016 election seems to have ushered in a normative climate that favored expression of several prejudices; this shift may have played a role in the substantial increase in bias-related incidents that follow closely upon the election.

Positive Stereotypes Are Pervasive and Powerful

Stereotypes and their associated category-based processes have traditionally been considered largely within the context of the negativity of their content and consequences, both among the general public and the scientific community. This review summarizes and integrates extant research on positive stereotypes, which are subjectively favorable beliefs about social groups, and examines their implications for individuals and groups directly targeted by such stereotypes. Furthermore, we examine the beneficial and adverse implications of positive stereotypes for interpersonal and intergroup relations, as well as the ways in which positive stereotypes, more so than negative stereotypes, may contribute to and perpetuate systemic differences in power and privilege.

Caught in the Middle

This study used archival data to examine how White, Black, and biracial Black/White people respond to implicit attitude feedback suggesting that they harbor racial bias that does not align with their self-reported attitudes. The results suggested that people are generally defensive in response to feedback indicating that their implicit attitudes differ from their explicit attitudes. Among monoracial White and Black individuals, this effect was particularly strong when they learned that they were implicitly more pro-White than they indicated explicitly. By contrast, biracial Black/White individuals were defensive about large discrepancies in either direction (more pro-Black or more pro-White implicit attitudes). These results pinpoint one distinct difference between monoracial and biracial populations and pave the way for future research to further explore how monoracial majority, minority, and biracial populations compare in other types of attitudes and responses to personal feedback.

Perceiving race relevance in everyday events: Target race matters, perceiver race does not

Perceptions of the relevance of race in everyday situations may matter for intergroup relations. Extending previous research, this work examines Blacks’ and Whites’ perceptions of race relevance in positive versus negative everyday situations affecting Black or White individuals. It also examines whether Black and White participants expect more intergroup disagreement regarding those perceptions than actually exists (i.e., interracial pluralistic ignorance). In Study 1, White participants saw significantly more race relevance in negative situations affecting Black (rather than White) individuals, whereas positive events seemed only marginally more race relevant when they featured Blacks. Study 2 replicated this pattern among White and Black participants. Furthermore, Study 2 uncovered interracial pluralistic ignorance: both Black and White participants expected to agree with their racial ingroup more than their racial outgroup, even though both groups reported similar race relevance perceptions. Participants’ own race relevance ratings and symbolic racist attitudes moderated the degree of expected disagreement.