Ironic effects of racial bias during interracial interactions.

Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
Psychological Science (Impact Factor: 4.43). 06/2005; 16(5):397-402. DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01547.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Previous research has suggested that Blacks like White interaction partners who make an effort to appear unbiased more than those who do not. We tested the hypothesis that, ironically, Blacks perceive White interaction partners who are more racially biased more positively than less biased White partners, primarily because the former group must make more of an effort to control racial bias than the latter. White participants in this study completed the Implicit Association Test (IAT) as a measure of racial bias and then discussed race relations with either a White or a Black partner. Whites' IAT scores predicted how positively they were perceived by Black (but not White) interaction partners, and this relationship was mediated by Blacks' perceptions of how engaged the White participants were during the interaction. We discuss implications of the finding that Blacks may, ironically, prefer to interact with highly racially biased Whites, at least in short interactions.


Available from: Jessica Salvatore, Jan 23, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Greenwald, Banaji, and Nosek (2015) present a reanalysis of the meta-analysis by Oswald, Mitchell, Blanton, Jaccard, and Tetlock (2013) that examined the effect sizes of Implicit Association Tests (IATs) designed to predict racial and ethnic discrimination. We discuss points of agreement and disagreement with respect to methods used to synthesize the IAT studies, and we correct an error by Greenwald et al. that obscures a key contribution of our meta-analysis. In the end, all of the meta-analyses converge on the conclusion that, across diverse methods of coding and analyzing the data, IAT scores are not good predictors of ethnic or racial discrimination, and explain, at most, small fractions of the variance in discriminatory behavior in controlled laboratory settings. The thought experiments presented by Greenwald et al. go well beyond the lab to claim systematic IAT effects in noisy real-world settings, but these hypothetical exercises depend crucially on untested and, arguably, untenable assumptions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 01/2015; in press. DOI:10.1037/pspa0000023 · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Handbook of the Social Psychology of Inequality, Edited by Jane McLeod, Edward Lawler, Michael Schwalbe, 01/2014: chapter "Ethno-Racial Attitudes and Social Inequality.": pages 515-545; Springer Netherlands.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Property evaluations rarely occur in the absence of social context. However, no research has investigated how intergroup processes related to prejudice extend to concepts of property. In the present research, we propose that factors such as group status, prejudice, and pressure to mask prejudiced attitudes affect how people value the property of racial ingroup and outgroup members. In Study 1, White American and Asian American participants were asked to appraise a hand-painted mug that was ostensibly created by either a White or an Asian person. Asian participants demonstrated an ingroup bias. White participants showed an outgroup bias, but this effect was qualified. Specifically, among White participants, higher racism towards Asian Americans predicted higher valuations of mugs created by Asian people. Study 2 revealed that White Americans’ prejudice towards Asian Americans predicted higher valuations of the mug created by an Asian person only when participants were highly concerned about conveying a non-prejudiced personal image. Our results suggest that, ironically, prejudiced majority group members evaluate the property of minority group members whom they dislike more favourably. The current findings provide a foundation for melding intergroup relations research with research on property and ownership.
    European Journal of Social Psychology 06/2015; DOI:10.1002/ejsp.2121 · 1.78 Impact Factor