and Donald A. Saucier, PhD Kansas State University Individual and Group Differences in the Tendency to Make Attributions to Prejudice Stuart S. Miller, MS and Donald A. Saucier, PhD Kansas State University

Acknowledgements Advisor: Don Saucier Lab Colleagues Conor O’Dea Amanda Martens Derrick Till Navante Peacock

Contemporary expressions of prejudice

Contemporary expressions of prejudice Expressions of prejudice are often constructed so as not to be perceived Attributions to prejudice may vary by situation and by individual The situation Cues for prejudice (e.g., harm to target, intent of actor) The individual perceiver Individuals disagree on whether prejudice is expressed Beliefs related to a tendency to make attributions to prejudice Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; Dovidio, 2001; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986 Inman & Baron, 1997; Miller et al. 2013, 2014; Swim et al., 2003

Individual differences Much work on targets’ attributions Stigma consciousness (e.g., Pinel, 1999) What about third-party observers? Do their beliefs about expressions of prejudice influence their attributions in situations The propensity to make attributions to prejudice scale (PMAPS) Examine the cognitive processes involved (e.g., top-down vs. bottom-up, automatic vs. controlled) Understand what influences these beliefs Miller & Saucier, under review 2015

The PMAPS Expectation (4 items) People discriminate against people who are not like them. Trivialization (4 items, reverse scored) Minorities today are overly worried about being victims of racism. Vigilance (4 items) I am on the lookout for instances of prejudice or discrimination. Self-efficacy (3 items) I am quick to recognize prejudice. Items averaged together to create a composite

PMAPS reliability and validity Good internal consistency (as > .80) Temporal stability (test-retest r = .68) Construct validity Predictive validity PMAPS predicts attributions to prejudice Attributions to prejudice about the events surrounding the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO r = .41

Construct validity Justification of prejudice PMAPS Modern Racism Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights. -.40** Right-Wing Authoritarianism What our country really needs instead of more “civil rights” is a good stiff dose of law and order. -.32** Social Dominance Orientation Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place. -.37** ** p < .001

Construct validity Suppression of prejudice PMAPS Internal Motivations to Suppress Prejudice Being nonprejudiced toward Black people is important to my self-concept. .44** Empathetic Concern I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. .37** Perspective Taking I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision. .27** Humanitarianism Egalitarianism There should be equality for everyone—because we are all human beings. .43** Attributional Complexity I think a lot about the influence that society has on my behavior and personality. ** p < .001

Construct validity Discriminant constructs PMAPS Need for Cognition I would prefer complex to simple problems. .10 Social Desirability No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener. < .01

Predictive validity Participants read one set of 8 scenarios manipulating expressions of racial prejudice Non-Prejudice Cue (race neutral explanation) A White driver flips off a Black driver for driving dangerously in traffic Ambiguous Prejudice (no explanation) A White sales associate keeps a close eye on a Black customer Clear Prejudice Cue (more obvious/blatant) A White individual shouts “Go back to Mexico” at a group of Hispanics at a civil rights protest

Predictive validity

Group differences Are there predictable group differences on the PMAPS based on individuals’ identities? Race (e.g., Blacks > Whites) More experience as targets of prejudice Prejudice more cognitively accessible Gender White women > White men Minority men and women? Double-jeopardy hypothesis Minority men < minority women Subordinate-male target hypothesis Minority men > minority women Inman & Baron, 1996; Levin, Sinclair, Veniegas, & Taylor, 2002; Marti, Bobier, & Baron, 2000; Sidanius & Veniegas, 2000; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003

Sample N = 3,551 (93% college students) Modal age 18 years old (M = 20.03, SD = 4.93) Whites/Caucasians: 1,117 men and 1,919 women Blacks/African Americans: 101 men and 139 women Latinos/Latinas/Hispanics: 63 men and 91 women Asians: 58 men and 63 women

Results

Summary of results Racial differences Gender differences Whites < Blacks and Hispanics Small to moderate effects (.23 < ds < .68) Gender differences No evidence for the double-jeopardy hypothesis Subordinate-male target hypothesis partially supported Small effects (ds < .22) Tendency to make attributions to prejudice less of a categorical difference between groups, but more of an individual difference

Conclusions and future questions Evidence of reliability and validity for the PMAPS Multidimensional, reliable measure Predicts attributions to prejudice in various situations Shows predictable group differences and variability within groups Are the individual differences the result of different kinds of experiences? What kinds of experiences (direct, indirect)? What cognitive processes mediate the tendency to make attributions to prejudice in different situations? Automatic or controlled top-down processes? When do errors in judgment occur?

Your thoughts and questions? Thank you Your thoughts and questions? Correspondence: Stuart Miller ssmiller@ksu.edu

Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. White Men - 2. White Women .24** 3. Black Men .68** .45** 4. Black Women .46** .23* -.21† 5. Hispanic Men .57** .36* -.08 .12 6. Hispanic Women .47** -.24† -.02 -.15 7. Asian Men .29† .03 -.43** -.21 -.33* -.20 8. Asian Women .14 -.13 -.60** -.37* -.49** -.16 Values are standardized effect sizes (Cohen’s d = Mrow – Mcolumn/SDpooled) †p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01