1. 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

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

3. Contemporary expressions of prejudice

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Predictive validity

13. 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

14. 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

15. Results

16. 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

17. 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?

18. Your thoughts and questions?
Thank you
Your thoughts and questions?
Correspondence: Stuart Miller

19. 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