1. Kansas State University
The Role of Ambiguity and Individual Differences in Attributions to Prejudice
Stuart S. Miller, Jericho M. Hockett, Conor J. O’Dea, Derrick F. Till, and Donald A. Saucier
Kansas State University
SPSP 2014
SPSP 2014
PREDICTING ATTRIBUTIONS TO PREJUDICE
Table 1. The Propensity to Make Attributions to Prejudice Scale (PMAPS)
Expectation
People discriminate against people who are not like them.
Racist behavior is more widespread than people think it is.
Other people treat minorities based on stereotypes.
You'll see lots of racism if you look for it. Trivialization
Racial minorities are too worried about being discriminated against.
Racial minorities are too sensitive about stereotypes.
Minorities today are overly worried about being victims of racism.
People are overly concerned about racial issues. Vigilance
I think about why racial minorities are treated stereotypically.
I think about whether people act in a prejudiced or discriminatory manner.
I consider whether people's actions are prejudiced or discriminatory.
I am on the lookout for instances of prejudice or discrimination. Efficacy
I am quick to recognize prejudice.
My friends think I'm good at spotting racism.
I find that prejudice and discrimination are pretty easy to spot.
Note. Responses were measured on a 1-9 scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 9 = Strongly Agree). Trivialization scores were inflected before averaging all 15 items to create the composite PMAPS score (a = .88, M = 5.85, SD = 1.18).
Figure 1. PMAPS X Cue Level Interaction
We developed the Propensity to Make Attributions to Prejudice Scale (PMAPS) to predict third party observers’ tendencies to see prejudice in others’ behaviors (Miller, Culbertson, Hockett, & Saucier, 2013). The primary objective of the current study is to assess the predictive validity of the measure.
Consistent with prior research on targets’ attributions to prejudice (e.g., Kaiser & Major, 2006; Pinel, 1999) and theory about top-down cognitive processing (e.g., Barrett & Swim, 1998; Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979; Nickerson, 1998), we reasoned that individuals’ prior beliefs and expectations will influence their judgments about whether prejudice has been expressed. More specifically, we propose that individuals’ beliefs about the prevalence of racial prejudice, their vigilance and efficacy in spotting prejudice, and their trivialization of targets’ concerns about prejudice (see Table 1) will predict their attributions to prejudice. Furthermore, we hypothesized, consistent with prior findings (for a review, see Major & Sawyer, 2009), that the strength of these beliefs will be especially influential when potential prejudices are ambiguously expressed.
METHOD
Participants
87 college students
45 males, 39 females
18 to 26 years old (M = 21.02, SD = 2.90)
62 White/Caucasian,15 Black/African American, 7 Hispanic/Latino, 2 Multiethnic
Procedure
Researchers approached students around campus and asked them to complete a single page survey that had demographic questions and the PMAPS (see Table 1) on the front page. On the reverse, participants were randomly presented with one of three sets of eight short scenarios involving a White actor and a racial minority target. We manipulated the level of situational ambiguity in the three sets of scenarios to create three experimental conditions (see conditions below and back of handout for a complete list of scenarios used). For each scenario, participants were instructed to rate the extent to which the behavior was the result of racial prejudice on a 1-9 scale with anchors at 1 = Definitely not prejudice and 9 = Definitely prejudice. We computed the average prejudice rating across the eight scenarios to form our criterion measure of perceived prejudice.
Experimental Conditions: Level of Ambiguity
Non-Prejudice Cue (8 items, a = .83, n = 30)
E.g., A White teacher fails a Black student for cheating.
Ambiguous Prejudice Cue (8 items, a = .87, n = 30)
E.g., A White sales associate keeps a close watch on a Black customer.
Clear Prejudice Cue (8 items, a = .90, n = 27)
E.g., A White judge gives Black defendants harsher sentences than White defendants for equal crimes.
RESULTS
We entered the average prejudice rating as the criterion variable in a regression analysis to test our hypothesis that the PMAPS level would interact with the amount of situational ambiguity in predicting attributions to prejudice. Not surprisingly, the level of ambiguity (i.e., whether the scenarios contained non- prejudice, ambiguous prejudice, or clear prejudice cues) produced a strong main effect on attributions to prejudice, R2 = .78, F(2, 84) = , p < .001, such that the ratings of prejudice were lowest in the Non-Prejudice Cue condition (M = 2.80, SD = 1.28), followed by the Ambiguous Prejudice Cue condition (M = 6.58, SD = 1.40), and were highest in the Clear Prejudice Cue condition (M = 8.35, SD = 1.05). We also found a main effect for the PMAPS above and beyond the condition main effect, ∆R2 = .07, F(1, 83) = 41.66, p < .001, such that higher levels of the PMAPS predicted higher prejudice ratings (b = .61). Simple slopes analyses revealed that the PMAPS was not predictive of prejudice ratings in the Clear Prejudice Cue condition (b = .27, p = .19). However, higher PMAPS scores were related to higher prejudice ratings in both the Non-Prejudice Cue (b = .60, p < .001) and Ambiguous Prejudice Cue (b = .82, p < .001) conditions. Furthermore, we found a significant difference in the regression coefficients between the Clear Prejudice Cue and Ambiguous Prejudice Cue conditions, ∆R2 = .008, F(1, 81) = 4.72, p = .03 (the other two comparisons failed to reach significance, ps > .20), indicating that the PMAPS was a stronger predictor of attributions to prejudice when cues for prejudice were ambiguous compared to blatant.
Note. Regression coefficients are unstandardized; * p < .001
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the current study support the predictive validity of the PMAPS. Participants’ beliefs about the prevalence of racial prejudice, their vigilance and efficacy in spotting prejudice, and their trivialization of targets’ concerns about prejudice predicted attributions to prejudice when cues for prejudice were ambiguous, but not when prejudice was more obvious.
Interestingly, the PMAPS also predicted attributions to prejudice when alternative, race-neutral explanations were available. This finding suggests that individuals who are more likely to make attributions to prejudice may discount non-prejudice explanations in situations where prejudice may potentially be expressed. Perhaps simply matching the prototype for prejudice (e.g., White actors and minority targets; Inman & Baron, 1996) is enough to raise suspicions.
Our findings demonstrate that the PMAPS is an important aspect in determining when prejudice is perceived. In future research, the PMAPS may be instrumental to researchers interested in understanding the complexities of how individual differences interact with social contextual factors to affect attributions to prejudice.
These data are in preparation. Please address correspondence to: Stuart S. Miller, Kansas State University, Department of Psychology, 468 Bluemont Hall, Manhattan, KS, ;

2. Appendix: Experimental Stimuli
Non-Prejudice Cue
A White manager chooses to hire a White applicant over a Black applicant because the White applicant was better qualified for the job.
A White customer gives a 10% tip to the Hispanic waiter for making the customer wait too long to order.
A White art critic writes a very negative review of a Hispanic playwright’s latest production because the critic thought the story was too predictable.
A White driver flips off a Black driver for driving dangerously in traffic.
A White teacher fails a Black student for cheating.
A White taxi driver refuses to pick up three Black pedestrians because they don’t have enough money to pay the fare.
A White police officer pulls a Black driver over for speeding.
A White loan officer at a bank denies a Black applicant’s loan because of a lack of collateral assets.
Ambiguous Prejudice Cue
A White TSA agent singles out an Arab passenger for additional security screening.
A White sales associate keeps a close watch on a Black customer.
A White individual ignores a homeless Black individual who asks for spare change.
A White student drops a course after discovering that the professor is Arab.
Two White neighbors are talking about how they don’t like the new Black family on their block.
Two White parents make their child end a romantic relationship with a Black significant other.
A White high school principle cuts the Mexican-American Studies program from the school curriculum.
A White teacher skips over a Hispanic student in a “read out loud” class activity.
Clear Prejudice Cue
A White individual intentionally gives an Arab individual incorrect directions.
A White teenager spray paints “Terrorist” on the front door of an Arab family’s home.
A White individual shouts “Go back to Mexico” at a group of Hispanics at a civil rights protest.
A White individual tweets “What a bunch of savages” after a riot in a Black neighborhood.
A White teacher calls the first-grade, mostly Hispanic students, “future criminals”.
A White landlord refuses to rent to a Hispanic tenant despite the tenant’s qualifications.
A White police officer says “in the dark, all Blacks look alike to me”.
A White judge gives Black defendants harsher sentences than White defendants for equal crimes.