1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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.

8. Results – Overall Model
Χ2 (12) = , 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

9. Significant 3-Way Interaction
p < .001
n.s.
The 3-way interaction seems to be coming from two places:
chi-square 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 p < .001, beta = 2.298, se = .534, wald = , p < .001 – odds ratio = 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.

10. 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

11. Questions, comments, vague misgivings
Questions, comments, vague misgivings? Victoria Estrada-Reynolds

12. Not significant Defendant Race x Race Salience

13. Results