Aneeta Rattan

Who Confronts Prejudice? The Role of Implicit Theories in the Motivation to Confront Prejudice

Despite the possible costs, confronting prejudice can have important benefits, ranging from the well-being of the target of prejudice to social change. What, then, motivates targets of prejudice to confront people who express explicit bias? In three studies, we tested the hypothesis that targets who hold an incremental theory of personality (i.e., the belief that people can change) are more likely to confront prejudice than targets who hold an entity theory of personality (i.e., the belief that people have fixed traits). In Study 1, targets’ beliefs about the malleability of personality predicted whether they spontaneously confronted an individual who expressed bias. In Study 2, targets who held more of an incremental theory reported that they would be more likely to confront prejudice and less likely to withdraw from future interactions with an individual who expressed prejudice. In Study 3, we manipulated implicit theories and replicated these findings. By highlighting the central role that implicit theories of personality play in targets’ motivation to confront prejudice, this research has important implications for intergroup relations and social change.

Gender-based rejection sensitivity and academic self-silencing in women.

Building on prior work on rejection sensitivity, we propose a social-cognitive model of gender-based rejection sensitivity (Gender RS) to account for individual differences in how women perceive and cope with gender-based evaluative threats in competitive, historically male institutions. Study 1 develops a measure of Gender RS, defined as anxious expectations of gender-based rejection. Studies 2-5 support the central predictions of the model: Gender RS is associated with increased perceptions of gender-based threats and increased coping by self-silencing--responses that reinforce feelings of alienation and diminished motivation. Study 2 shows that Gender RS is distinct from overall sensitivity to rejection or perceiving the world through the lens of gender. Study 3 shows that Gender RS becomes activated specifically when gender-based rejection is a plausible explanation for negative outcomes. Study 4 provides experimental evidence that Gender RS predicts lower academic self-confidence, greater expectations of bias, and avoidance of opportunities for further help from a weakness-focused expert evaluator. Study 5 tests the Gender RS model in situ, using daily diaries to track womens experiences during the first weeks in a highly competitive law school. Implications for womens coping with the subtle nature of contemporary sexism are discussed as well as the importance of institution-level checks to prevent the costs of gender-based rejection.

A Choice Mind-Set Increases the Acceptance and Maintenance of Wealth Inequality

Wealth inequality has significant psychological, physiological, societal, and economic costs. In six experiments, we investigated how seemingly innocuous, culturally pervasive ideas can help maintain and further wealth inequality. Specifically, we tested whether the concept of choice, which is deeply valued in American society, leads Americans to act in ways that perpetuate wealth inequality. Thinking in terms of choice, we argue, activates the belief that life outcomes stem from personal agency, not societal factors, and thereby leads people to justify wealth inequality. The results showed that highlighting the concept of choice makes people less disturbed by facts about existing wealth inequality in the United States, more likely to underestimate the role of societal factors in individuals’ successes, less likely to support the redistribution of educational resources, and less likely to support raising taxes on the rich—even if doing so would help resolve a budget deficit crisis. These findings indicate that the culturally valued concept of choice contributes to the maintenance of wealth inequality.

Race and the Fragility of the Legal Distinction between Juveniles and Adults

Legal precedent establishes juvenile offenders as inherently less culpable than adult offenders and thus protects juveniles from the most severe of punishments. But how fragile might these protections be? In the present study, simply bringing to mind a Black (vs. White) juvenile offender led participants to view juveniles in general as significantly more similar to adults in their inherent culpability and to express more support for severe sentencing. Indeed, these differences in participants’ perceptions of this foundational legal precedent distinguishing between juveniles and adults accounted for their greater support for severe punishment. These results highlight the fragility of protections for juveniles when race is in play. Furthermore, we suggest that this fragility may have broad implications for how juveniles are seen and treated in the criminal justice system.

Leveraging mindsets to promote academic achievement: Policy recommendations

The United States must improve its students’ educational achievement. Race, gender, and social class gaps persist, and, overall, U.S. students rank poorly among peers globally. Scientific research shows that students’ psychology—their “academic mindsets”—have a critical role in educational achievement. Yet policymakers have not taken full advantage of cost-effective and well-validated mindset interventions. In this article, we present two key academic mindsets. The first, a growth mindset, refers to the belief that intelligence can be developed over time. The second, a belonging mindset, refers to the belief that people like you belong in your school or in a given academic field. Extensive research shows that fostering these mindsets can improve students’ motivation; raise grades; and reduce racial, gender, and social class gaps. Of course, mindsets are not a panacea, but with proper implementation they can be an excellent point of entry. We show how policy at all levels (federal, state, and local) can leverage mindsets to lift the nation’s educational outcomes.

How “It Gets Better” Effectively Communicating Support to Targets of Prejudice

What is said when communicating intergroup support to targets of prejudice, and how do targets react? We hypothesized that people not targeted by prejudice reference social connection (e.g., social support) more than social change (e.g., calling for a reduction in prejudice) in their supportive messages. However, we hypothesized that targets of prejudice would be more comforted by social change messages. We content coded naturalistic messages of support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning teenagers from youtube.com (Study 1) and college undergraduates’ statements (Study 2a) and found social connection messages more frequent than social change messages. Next, we explored targets’ responses (Studies 2b-4b). Lesbian and gay participants rated social connection messages less comforting than social change messages (Study 3). Study 4 showed that only targets of prejudice distinguish social connection from social change messages in this way, versus non-targets. These results highlight the importance of studying the communication, content, and consequences of positive intergroup attitudes.

Implicit Theories Shape Intergroup Relations

Abstract It is often assumed that improving intergroup relations is simply a matter of directly addressing prejudice. In this chapter, we show that this is not the case. Instead, we illuminate through our research how implicit theories give rise to prejudice and how they disrupt intergroup relations even in people who are low in prejudice. In particular, we demonstrate that those who believe that people have fixed attributes (an entity theory) are more likely to form, invest in, and act on stereotypes, and are more likely to show problematic intergroup relations above and beyond their level of prejudice compared to those who believe that people are capable of change (an incremental theory). These compromised intergroup relations are shown for both majority-group and minority-group members. This chapter sheds new light on the processes that drive intergroup relations and suggests a novel path to improving intergroup relations—changing implicit theories.

Mindsets About Malleability and Intergroup Relations

We live in a world rife with unwanted intergroup bias. Is this inevitable, or can it be changed? Recent research suggests that people’s perspectives on this question may determine which reality emerges, one in which intergroup relations come to be improved over time, or one in which they are continually marked by intergroup divisions and bias. This chapter reviews the body of research on mindsets about malleability and stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination both from the perspective of perceivers (who exhibit bias) and targets (who experience bias). Given the evidence showing the importance of mindsets about malleability for the production of bias, people’s responses to it, and real-world intergroup reconciliation, we advocate an approach to the study of intergroup relations that considers people’s lay theories about malleability. Throughout, we discuss the implications and open questions that arise from this theoretical perspective.

Meta-lay theories of scientific potential drive underrepresented students’ sense of belonging to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

The current research investigates people’s perceptions of others’ lay theories (or mindsets), an understudied construct that we call meta-lay theories. Six studies examine whether underrepresented students’ meta-lay theories influence their sense of belonging to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). The studies tested whether underrepresented students who perceive their faculty as believing most students have high scientific aptitude (a universal metatheory) would report a stronger sense of belonging to STEM than those who think their faculty believe that not everyone has high scientific aptitude (a nonuniversal metatheory). Women PhD candidates in STEM fields who held universal rather than nonuniversal metatheories felt greater sense of belonging to their field, both when metatheories were measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2). Undergraduates who held more universal metatheories reported a higher sense of belonging to STEM (Studies 3 and 4) and earned higher final course grades (Study 3). Experimental manipulations depicting a professor communicating the universal lay theory eliminated the difference between African American and European American students’ attraction to a STEM course (Study 5) and between women and men’s sense of belonging to STEM (Study 6). Mini meta-analyses indicated that the universal metatheory increases underrepresented students’ sense of belonging to STEM, reduces the extent of social identity threat they experience, and reduces their perception of faculty as endorsing stereotypes. Across different underrepresented groups, types of institutions, areas of STEM, and points in the STEM pipeline, students’ metaperceptions of faculty’s lay theories about scientific aptitude influence their sense of belonging to STEM.

Identical applicant but different outcomes: The impact of gender versus race salience in hiring

People belong to multiple social groups, which may have conflicting stereotypic associations. A manager evaluating an Asian woman for a computer programming job could be influenced by negative gender stereotypes or by positive racial stereotypes. We hypothesized that evaluations of job candidates can depend upon what social group is more salient, even when both are apparent. In three studies, using student (Study 1) and nonstudent (Studies 2 and 3) samples, we compared ratings of an Asian American female applicant after subtly making her race or gender salient in stereotypically male employment contexts. Consistent with our predictions, we found evidence that men rated her as more skilled (Studies 1 and 3), more hirable (Studies 1–3), and offered her more pay (Study 2) in science and technology-related positions when her race, rather than gender, was salient. The theoretical implications for person perception and practical implications in employment contexts are discussed.