Enhancing the salience of free speech rights increases differential perceived free speech protections for criminal acts against Black versus White targets

Roussos, Gina; Dovidio, John F.

doi:10.1111/jasp.12601

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study (Roussos & Dovidio, 2019), participants (n = 372, 39% men, 75% White) 2 varying in levels of anti-Black prejudice (Henry & Sears, 2002) were first presented with text from the First Amendment, thus priming the right to free speech, or the Fourth Amendment (protection from unreasonable search and seizure), while completing a document identification task where they were presented with passages from important American historical documents (e.g., Bill of Rights, Constitution) and were asked to identify the source of each passage. Participants then read the vignette from our first study in which an individual commits either a Black-or White-targeted criminal act and completed items that assessed the extent to which they viewed the act as protected by the right of freedom of speech and how willing participants were to support hate-crime charges for the person who committed the act.…”

Section: Manipulation Of the Salience Of Freedom Of Speechmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Relying on statistical mediation involving measured variables to show a relationship between two variables is limited because it does not definitively identify the direction of causality between the mediator and the dependent variable (Bullock, Green, & Ha, 2010). Thus, in a subsequent study (Roussos & Dovidio, 2019), we directly manipulated the salience of the right to freedom of speech by priming participants with free-speech rights.…”

Section: Manipulation Of the Salience Of Freedom Of Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Not for further distribution. illustrated in Figure 11.2 (adapted from Roussos & Dovidio, 2019), priming participants with the text of the First Amendment concerning freedom of speech amplified the interaction between anti-Black bias and act target compared with the condition in which participants read the text of the Fourth Amendment pertaining to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Moreover, although priming did directly moderate the joint effects of anti-Black bias and target race, we observed a significant indirect effect of priming on support for hate-crime charges: Greater perceptions of free-speech protection for the act predicted less support for hate-crime charges.…”

Section: Manipulation Of the Salience Of Freedom Of Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tolerating hate: Racial bias, freedom of speech, and responses to hate crimes.

Roussos¹,

Dovidio²

2020

Perspectives on Hate: How It Originates, Develops, Manifests, and Spreads.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

E ven within societies, such as the United States, that hold egalitarianism as a core value, hate rooted in group-based biases exerts substantial influence on relations between groups and the well-being of members of traditionally disadvantaged groups. Bias-motivated violence, also known as a hate crime, remains a pressing social concern. Hate is a commonly used term, both in everyday language and in the behavioral science literature, yet there is no singular definition of the term (R. Sternberg & Sternberg, 2008). Webster's New World College Dictionary (5th ed.) defines hate as a verb meaning "to have a strong dislike for; loathe, despise." Sternberg (2003), from a psychological perspective, identified three fundamental components of hate: (a) negation of intimacy, which represents the pursuit of distance; (b) passion, which expresses itself as extreme anger or fear; and (c) commitment, which is associated with the devaluation of an individual or group through contempt. Although elements (dislike, loathing, distancing, passion, and commitment) of both the common definition and psychological perspective that may underlie motivations, the emotional and devaluation aspects are not explicitly included in the legal definition of hate crime. A hate crime is defined legally in the United States as any criminal offense "motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity" (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017). Because lawmakers wrote hate crime statutes to protect against acts motivated by bias toward overall categories of social identity (e.g., race, gender),

show abstract

Section: Manipulation Of the Salience Of Freedom Of Speechmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Manipulation Of the Salience Of Freedom Of Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Manipulation Of the Salience Of Freedom Of Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tolerating hate: Racial bias, freedom of speech, and responses to hate crimes.

Roussos¹,

Dovidio²

2020

Perspectives on Hate: How It Originates, Develops, Manifests, and Spreads.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We propose that, in instances of “racially-charged” events such as police violence against minority group members, it is likely that contemporary social norms to appear non-prejudiced (Jargon & Thisj, 2020; McDonald & Crandall, 2015) and sensitive to racial injustice might play a role. In support of this contention, there is recent empirical evidence that those who are motivated to appear unprejudiced typically report more favorable reactions to victimized minority group members relative to victimized majority group members (Roussos & Dovidio, 2018, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empathy for a Black Woman Victim of Police Sexual Violence: The Roles of Crime-Related Stress and Stereotype Attributions

Johnson

Sattler

Hiel

et al. 2022

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Police sexual violence has been ranked as the second most common form of misconduct among police officers. Moreover, there is evidence that Black women are at heightened risk of being victims of such police violence. A report titled Say Her Name: Resisting Police Brutality Against Black Women has brought international attention to the minimal empirical focus on such police violence toward Black women. To address this lacuna in the literature, using an incident of police sexual assault of a woman, we assessed whether victim’s race and participants’ level of crime-related stress (i.e., stress due to crime victimization) would influence empathic responding toward the victim. Prolific participants ( N = 411) first completed a measure of crime-related stress. They then read an article describing a White police officer’s sexual assault of a Black or White woman. Next, participants completed a racial stereotype-related measure (i.e., Black women’s higher sexual proclivity) and a stereotype-unrelated measure (i.e., perceived victim untrustworthiness), and reported their victim-directed empathic responding. At high stress levels, participants reported less empathy for the Black (relative to White) victim. At low stress levels, there was greater Black victim-directed empathy. The race effects on empathy were mediated by heightened attribution of Black women-related stereotypical beliefs to the Black victim at high stress levels and by diminished attribution at low stress levels. In sum, we addressed the lacuna in the literature on police sexual violence against Black women while providing evidence that stress can play a critical role in the occurrence of the oft-cited outgroup-directed empathy deficit.

show abstract

“…Although prior research has not investigated anti-PC attitudes as vicarious justifications for prejudice, specifically, prior research has investigated endorsement of free speech protections as a vicarious justification for prejudice (Roussos & Dovidio, 2018, 2019; White & Crandall, 2017). Like anti-PC attitudes, endorsement of freedom of speech represents an abstract race-neutral value that indicates an opposition to expressive restrictions without requiring people to discuss race or racism directly.…”

Section: Vicarious Justifications For Prejudicementioning

confidence: 99%

Support for Native-Themed Mascots and Opposition to Political Correctness

Burns

Granz

Williams

2022

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Enhancing the salience of free speech rights increases differential perceived free speech protections for criminal acts against Black versus White targets

Cited by 5 publications

References 58 publications

Tolerating hate: Racial bias, freedom of speech, and responses to hate crimes.

Tolerating hate: Racial bias, freedom of speech, and responses to hate crimes.

Empathy for a Black Woman Victim of Police Sexual Violence: The Roles of Crime-Related Stress and Stereotype Attributions

Support for Native-Themed Mascots and Opposition to Political Correctness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About