Aversive and Modern Racism: Examining Different Types of Prejudice in a Mock Juror Setting Victoria Estrada-Reynolds, Kimberly A. Schweitzer, Elizabeth Ferguson, & Scott Freng University of Wyoming Funded by the APLS Grants-in-aid and the Wyoming Social Justice Research Center

Identifying Prejudice From McConahay (1986) Several meta-analyses have found that African American defendants found guilty more often/receive more punitive decisions than their European American counterparts However, as mentioned before, overt racism is declining, thus traditional measures of prejudice do not capture more subtle feelings and attitudes towards racial groups. Implicit measures have been widely used to determine what types of automatic attitudes exist in an individual.

Two-Dimensional Model of Prejudice Modern Racist Principle Conservative Aversive Truly Low Prejudice High Implicit Low Implicit High Explicit Using the IAT and Modern Racism Scale, Son Hing and colleagues Low Explicit Son Hing et al. (2008)

Aversive and Modern Racism Aversive Racism Motivated to match egalitarian beliefs E.g.: Race salience and juror decisions1 Modern Racism Motivated to not appear prejudiced E.g.: “Excuse” present in job-hiring decision2 Both are motivated to hide prejudices, but for different reasons Aversive Racists are more concerned with matching their egalitarian beliefs Aversive racists are motivated to act in a way consistent with their egalitarian beliefs (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986) and will reduce bias when race is made salient. Modern Racists are more concerned with not being perceived as racist, as that is not pc Modern racists will act in a discriminatory way when they can rationalize their prejudice and behavior through conservative values; for example, if a job candidate is AA and is not qualified for a job, modern racists will discriminate against this candidate compared to an EA candidate because they have justification to do so (Sears & Kinder, 1981, 1985). 1Sommers & Ellsworth (2001); 2Sears & Kinder (1981; 1985)

The Current Study Examine aversive and modern racism in mock-juror decisions Hypotheses: Discrimination reduced when race is salient for aversive racists Discrimination reduced when no excuse/justification exists for modern racists

Method Recruited MTurk participants Read one of eight aggravated assault vignettes1 Defendant race: White or Black Race salience: present or absent “You know better than to talk that way about a [black/white] man in front of his friends” Justification: Strength of evidence Witness heard something that sounded like a slap/saw victim fall to floor but did not hear a slap Provided verdict Implicit Association Test Modern Racism Scale The scenario describes the defendant out at a bar with co-workers where he is accused of slapping his girlfriend and knocking her off a chair. Victim and defendant demographics were given, including the defendant race manipulation. Race salience was manipulated by the addition/omission of a racial reference in the scenario. Finally, justification was manipulated as evidence strength against the defendant; witnesses testified that they heard/didn’t hear a slap. 1Sommers & Ellsworth (2000)

Demographics 304 MTurk participants 81.9% European American 57.9% Female Age: M = 37.17, SD = 12.85 142 classified as Aversive Racist 162 classified as Modern Racist Data reduction – selected for AR and MR profiles (excluded TLP and PC), US citizens, manipulation checks for defendant race, whether there was a slap in the condition, and what crime the defendant was charged with.

Results – Overall Model Χ2 (12) = 77.856, p < .001 B SE Wald P-value Type of Prejudice -0.355 .310 1.311 .252 Defendant Race -0.518 .304 2.903 .088 Race Salience 0.899 .336 7.154 .007* Slap Heard 2.039 .333 37.417 < .001* Defendant Race X Race Salience -0.895 .597 2.252 .133 Defendant Race X Slap Heard -1.068 .616 3.011 .083 Defendant Race X Type of Prejudice 1.858 .627 8.771 .003* Race Salience X Slap Heard -1.530 .691 4.901 .027* Slap Heard X Type of Prejudice -0.280 .617 .205 .65 Race Salience X Type of Prejudice 1.238 .606 4.169 .041* Defendant Race X Race Salience X Type of Prejudice -1.184 1.258 .886 .346 Defendant Race X Slap Heard X Type of Prejudice -0.830 .165 25.266

Significant 3-Way Interaction p < .001 n.s. The 3-way interaction seems to be coming from two places: chi-square 4.699 p = .03, beta 1.46, se .72, wald 4.11, p = .04 odds ratio = 4.34 – Modern racists are more likely to convict the black defendant compared to aversive racists when no slap is present (weak case strength). MRs are about 4.34 times more likely to convict the black defendant compared to the aversive racists in the no slap condition. Chi square 22.67 p < .001, beta = 2.298, se = .534, wald = 18.497, p < .001 – odds ratio = 9.95. When a slap is present, modern racists are more likely to convict the white defendant compared to when no slap is present (high and low strength of evidence, resp.). When a slap is present, the odds of modern racists convicting White defendants is 9.95 times greater than if a slap is not present.

Discussion Bend-over-backwards to not appear prejudiced towards African American Defendant Especially in Slap (“excuse”) condition Excuse condition too weak/ambiguous? Current race relations affecting race salience and responses Examine differing motivations among Modern and Aversive Racists

Questions, comments, vague misgivings Questions, comments, vague misgivings? Victoria Estrada-Reynolds vestrad1@uwyo.edu

Not significant Defendant Race x Race Salience

Results