Implicit Bias Predicts Liking of Ingroup Members Who Are Comfortable With Intergroup Interaction.

We test a novel framework for how ingroup members are perceived during intergroup interaction. Across three experiments, we found that, above and beyond egalitarian attitudes and motivations, White observers' automatic responses to Blacks (i.e., their implicit anti-Black bias) shaped their affiliation toward ingroup targets who appeared comfortable engaging in interracial versus same-race interaction. White observers' implicit anti-Black bias negatively correlated with liking of White targets who were comfortable with Blacks (Experiments 1-3). The relationship between implicit bias and liking varied as a function of targets' nonverbal comfort in interracial interactions (Experiment 1). Specifically, implicit bias negatively correlated with liking of targets when targets' nonverbal behaviors revealed observers felt comfortable with interracial contact, irrespective of the nature of those behaviors (Experiment 2). Finally, the relationship between implicit bias and target liking was mediated by perceived similarity (Experiment 3). Theoretical implications for stigma-by-association, social network homogeneity, and extended contact are discussed

Neuroanatomical Correlates of the Income-Achievement Gap

In the United States, the difference in academic achievement between higher- and lower-income students (i.e., the income-achievement gap) is substantial and growing. In the research reported here, we investigated neuroanatomical correlates of this gap in adolescents (N = 58) in whom academic achievement was measured by statewide standardized testing. Cortical gray-matter volume was significantly greater in students from higher-income backgrounds (n = 35) than in students from lower-income backgrounds (n = 23), but cortical white-matter volume and total cortical surface area did not differ significantly between groups. Cortical thickness in all lobes of the brain was greater in students from higher-income than lower-income backgrounds. Greater cortical thickness, particularly in temporal and occipital lobes, was associated with better test performance. These results represent the first evidence that cortical thickness in higher- and lower-income students differs across broad swaths of the brain and that cortical thickness is related to scores on academic-achievement tests.Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationNational Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant F32 HD079143-01)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant F32 MH095354-01

Ally - White Sample V3

Study Protocol Study Objective and Hypothesis We seek to understand how individuals signal that they hold egalitarian views and how differences in these expressions relay information about individuals underlying beliefs and biases. Furthermore, we hypothesize that the manner in which individuals express their egalitarian views is interpreted by observers as belying different underlying beliefs and preferences. Additionally, we will test whether the manner in which participants express their egalitarian views will change depending on whether they are instructed to “answer honestly” or “in the least prejudiced way possible.” Study Design The current study is a survey-based experiment. Participants will first be randomly assigned to instructions to either “answer the following questions as honestly as possible,” or to “answer the following questions in the least prejudiced way possible.” Next, they will be asked to respond to two prompts: 1) “Do you believe that all people are equal and should have equality of opportunity? Why or why not?”; and 2) “Are you prejudiced towards blacks? Why or why not?” All participants will then be instructed to give their “true opinions in the way that best represents their actual self.” They will then answer the two questions above with answer choices of Yes/No (i.e. “Yes, I am prejudiced towards Blacks.” or “No, I am not prejudiced towards Blacks.” Next, participants will be asked to complete the IMS scale by Plant & Devine and the Modern Racism scale. Next, participants will be asked three questions about their responses to the writing prompts, all about the level of prejudice that their answers communicated. Finally, they will be surveyed on their demographic characteristics. Study Site Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Participants and Recruitment Participants will be recruited from a for-pay participant pool at the MTurk website. Participants take part in social science experiments in order to receive pay; they will be notified of this study by checking the MTurk website. They will receive $0.90 for the study. Inclusion Criteria: • 18 years of age or older • White • English as a first language or an equivalent level of fluency Exclusion Criteria: • We will exclude those who use the same answer for every question. • We will exclude those in the non-prejudiced instruction condition who do not correctly identify the instructions, as well as those in either condition who give a manipulation check answer that does not make sense. • We will exclude those whose answers are incomprehensible or who copy and pasted their responses from websites. • We will exclude those who answer that they are prejudiced and those who say that they do not believe in equality. Sample Size Determination We aimed to collect 200 participants per condition, of which there are 2. In order to account for a 15% manipulation check fail rate (as was determined in pilot testing), we will recruit 230 participants. Measures Key Dependent Variables: 1) Racial Attitudes: The participants score on the IMS and Modern Racism scales is a key dependent variable. 2) Response Prejudice Communication: We will ask participants three separate questions about the level of prejudice communicated from their responses to the two prompts. a. Compared to the least or most prejudiced response you possibly could have written, how prejudiced were the responses your wrote? (1 - The Least Prejudiced Possible, 7 - The Most Prejudiced Possible) b. In the responses you wrote, to what extent did you try to communicate that you were or were not prejudiced? (1 - I Tried to Communicate That I Am Not Prejudiced., 7 - I Tried to Communicate That I Am Prejudiced.) c. In the responses you wrote, to what extent did you try to communicate that you believe or do not believe that all people are equal and should have equality of opportunity? (1 - I Tried to Communicate I Believe In Equality., 7- I Tried to Communicate I Do Not Believe In Equality.) Analysis We will conduct an independent samples t-test on each of our primary measures to determine if the two groups (those instructed to be as honest as possible vs. those instructed to be the least prejudiced possible) differ from one another. We do not expect that the two groups will be significantly different from one another on any measure, as all participants will be asked to provide their true opinion on those questions. We plan to use the written responses in a follow-up experiment, whereby the responses will be shown to a new set of participants who will read the responses and then answer questions about their impressions of the individual who wrote the response

Allyship - Perceived Egalitarian Norms

Study Protocol Study Objective and Hypothesis We seek to understand how individuals signal that they hold egalitarian views and how differences in these expressions relay information about individuals underlying beliefs and biases. Furthermore, we hypothesize that the manner in which individuals express their egalitarian views is interpreted by observers as belying different underlying beliefs and preferences. Additionally, we hypothesize that exposure to some forms of egalitarian view expressions will lead to differences in observers’ perceptions of the normativity of various racial policies and attitudes. Study Design The current study is a survey-based experiment with 55 target stimuli created in a previous experiment. In a previous experiment, participants were asked to respond to two prompts: 1) “Do you believe that all people are equal and should have equality of opportunity? Why or why not?”; and 2) “Are you prejudiced towards blacks? Why or why not?” In this study participants will read 4 answers given by previous participants and then answer a series of questions about the participant who wrote the statements. The 4 answers will be randomly selected from one of two groupings: one group (high prejudice targets) has answers from 28 participants who were both below the median IMS score and above the median Modern Racism score, while the second group (low prejudice targets) has answers from 27 participants who were both above the median IMS score and below the median Modern Racism score. The answers from these 55 participants represent all the available, interpretable answers from the prior study that fit the aforementioned criteria. No useable answers were excluded. This study employs a 2 (target ostensible ideology: liberal vs conservative) x 2 (target actual prejudice: high vs low) design. Participants will be randomly shown either all high prejudice or all low prejudice target answers. Participants will also randomly be told the statements that they will read were all written by individuals who identified as politically liberal or politically conservative. After reading each target’s answers, participants will be asked how much they like, would get along with, and feel similar to the target. Next, participants will be asked how socially acceptable they think Americans find the Modern Racism Scale items and 5 racial policies to be, as well as what percentage of Americans they believe would agree with the Modern Racism Scale and the 5 racially related policies. Next, participants will be asked to answer whether they believe that all people are equal and should have equality of opportunity and whether they are you prejudiced towards blacks. Next, participants will be asked the two outgroup empathy items, the two outgroup similarity items, and the single “common fate” item from Craig & Richeson, 2012. Afterwards, participants will be asked for their own responses to the IMS/EMS scales, Modern Racism scale, the degree to which they agree with those same 5 racially related policies, the extent to which they are comfortable around Black people, their intergroup anxiety, and intergroup empathy. Finally, they will be surveyed on their demographic characteristics. Study Site Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Participants and Recruitment Participants will be recruited from a for-pay participant pool at the MTurk website. Participants take part in social science experiments in order to receive pay; they will be notified of this study by checking the MTurk website. They will receive $1.25 for the study. Inclusion Criteria: • 18 years of age or older • White • English as a first language or an equivalent level of fluency Exclusion Criteria: • We will exclude those who use the same answer for every question or have an unacceptable TurkPrime bot score. Sample Size Determination We aim to collect an average of 200 per cell, of which we have 4: 2 (target ostensible ideology: liberal vs conservative) x 2 (target actual prejudice: high vs low). This results in 800 participants. Measures Key Dependent Variables: 1) Perception of Targets: how much they like, would get along with, and feel similar to the target. 2) Racial Attitudes: Attitudes towards Blacks and support for policies that predominately benefit Blacks will be measured. a. Modern Racism Scale (6 items) b. Internal and External Motivation to be Nonprejudiced Scales (IMS/EMS; 10 items) c. Racial Policies: We will ask participants their agreement with 5 racial policies. d. Comfort Around Black People: We will ask participants how comfortable they feel around Black people on a single item question e. Intergroup Anxiety Scale (Stephan & Stephan, 1985; 8 items). f. Intergroup Empathy Scale (3 items) 3) Perception of Societal Norms: a. Modern Racism Scale: We will ask participants how socially acceptable the scale statements are and what percentage of Americans would agree with each statement. b. Racial Policies. We will ask participants how socially acceptable the policies are and what percentage of Americans would agree with each policy. Political Ideology: We will ask participants about their political ideology and their perception of the writer’s ideology. The options will be: very conservative, moderately conservative, moderately liberal, or very liberal. Planned Analysis We will analyze the results to determine: Main effects and interactions of target ostensible ideology (liberal vs conservative) and target actual prejudice (high vs low) on participants responses to our 1) DV scales 2) 3rd party ratings of their writing prompt responses. We will also test 3) whether the 4 targets average Modern Racism, IMS, or 3rd party raters’ accuracy in estimating these dimensions or 4) 3rd party raters’ evaluations of targets’ responses predicts participant responses Exploratory 1: As an exploratory analysis, we will see if participant political ideology and Modern Racism scores moderate the effects of condition on our DVs

Majority members misperceive even “win-win” diversity policies as unbeneficial to them

Six studies show that majority members misperceive diversity policies as unbeneficial to their ingroup, even when policies benefit them. Majority members perceived non-zero-sum university admission policies—policies that increase the acceptance of both URM (i.e., underrepresented minority) and non-URM applicants—as harmful to their ingroup when merely framed as “diversity” policies. Even for policies lacking a diversity framing (i.e., “leadership” policies), majority members misperceived that their ingroup would not benefit when policies provided relatively greater benefit to URMs, but not when they provided relatively greater benefit to non- URMs. No consistent evidence emerged that these effects were driven by ideological factors: Majority members’ misperceptions occurred even when accounting for self-reported beliefs around diversity, hierarchy, race, and politics. Instead, we find that majority group membership itself predicts misperceptions, such that both Black and White participants accurately perceive non-zero-sum diversity policies as also benefiting the majority when participants are represented as members of the minority group