No abstract

In this research we examine how normative expressions of prejudice shape university communities. Across four studies, we examine the prevalence of a former university mascot depicting harmful stereotypes about Native Americans and how exposure to that mascot influences people’s attitudes and behaviors. In Study 1, images of the mascot persist on more than 10% of university apparel worn by students, in 50% of campus spaces, and in 5% of images searched online. Surveying students on this campus, we find that students with lower (higher) reported explicit prejudice also tended to have lower (higher) belonging at the university (Study 2). In two final experimental studies (N = 683), when compared to stereotype free university advertisements exposure to the stereotypic mascot reduced donations to the university by 5.5%, and in particular, among people low versus high in explicit prejudice (Studies 3 and 4). Overall, these findings suggest that institutions play an important role in shaping the intergroup attitudes of their membership.

Implicit bias has garnered considerable public attention, with a number of behaviors (e.g., police shootings) attributed to it. Here, we present the results of 4 studies and an internal meta-analysis that examine how people reason about discrimination based on whether it was attributed to the implicit or explicit attitudes of the perpetrators. Participants’ perceptions of perpetrator accountability, support for punishment, level of concern about the bias, and support for various efforts to reduce it (e.g., education) were assessed. Taken together, the results suggest that perpetrators of discrimination are held less accountable and often seen as less worthy of punishment when their behavior is attributed to implicit rather than to explicit bias. Moreover, at least under some circumstances, people express less concern about, and are less likely to support efforts to combat, implicit compared with explicit bias. Implications for efforts to communicate the science of implicit bias without undermining accountability for the discrimination it engenders are discussed.

An emerging body of research finds that exposure to the shifting racial demographics of a nation can engender concerns about racial group status among members of the dominant racial group. The present work revisits this finding, probing a broader set of group status concerns than has been examined in most past research. Three experiments exposed four samples of White Americans to racial demographic information or race-neutral control information, then assessed their perception that the relative status of racial groups in the nation would change and the extent to which they were alarmed by such a status shift—that is, status threat. Consistent with past work, what we now term perceived status change increased in response to salient racial demographics information, relative to race-neutral control information, irrespective of participants’ political ideology. Departing from past work, however, the perceived threat associated with changing racial demographics was moderated by political ideology. Specifically, politically conservative White participants demonstrated high levels of group status threat in the neutral control condition that either increased (Study 1a, Study 2) or stayed equally high (Study 1b, Study 3) after exposure to information about a racial shift. In contrast, in all studies, politically liberal White participants demonstrated a modest level of group status threat in the control condition that was attenuated upon exposure to a racial shift. Taken together, these results suggest a polarization of responses to the increasing racial diversity of the nation, one that was not observed even just a few years ago.

No abstract