Jason A. Nier

Changing Interracial Evaluations and Behavior: The Effects of a Common Group Identity:

Two studies examined whether developing a common ingroup identity among Blacks and Whites can improve Whites’ interracial evaluations. In Study 1, White participants interacted with a Black or White confederate under conditions designed to produce cognitive representations as fellow group members or as separate individuals. Consistent with the Common Ingroup Identity Model, Whites evaluated Blacks more favorably when they interacted with them as members of the same group than as separate individuals. Study 2, conducted as fans entered a football stadium, revealed that Whites complied more frequently with a Black interviewer’s request to interview them when they shared common university affiliation, relative to when the Black interviewer was affiliated with the opposing team.

How Dissociated Are Implicit and Explicit Racial Attitudes? A Bogus Pipeline Approach

The current study examined the implicit and explicit attitudes of White Americans toward African-Americans. A variation of the Bogus Pipeline procedure was employed to determine if the apparent dissociation between implicit and explicit measures of racial attitudes that is reported in previous research might be exaggerated. The results indicated that the relationship between implicit and explicit attitudes was only significant under Bogus Pipeline conditions, while implicit and explicit attitudes were largely dissociated when they were measured under normal circumstances. Thus, it appeared that as the motivation to accurately report explicit attitudes increased, the implicit-explicit relationship strengthened and the dissociation between implicit and explicit racial attitudes was substantially reduced. The results indicate that Whites’ implicit and explicit attitudes toward African-Americans may not be as greatly dissociated as some theories of racial attitudes have presumed.

Aversive Racism: Bias without Intention

This chapter examines one form of contemporary racism, “aversive racism.” Aversive racism is characterized by a conflict between the denial of personal prejudice and unconscious negative feelings and beliefs, which may be rooted in normal psychological processes (such as social categorization). In the chapter, we review experimental evidence of the existence and operation of aversive racism in the behavior of Whites toward Blacks, with emphasis on studies of unintentional discrimination in selection and hiring. Then we explore approaches for combating aversive racism. Specifically, within the framework of the Common Ingroup Identity Model, we demonstrate how developing a sense of shared identity between members of different groups can redirect the forces of social categorization toward the reduction of racial biases. We conclude with a discussion of the social and legal implications of aversive racism and strategies for combating it.

The O. J. Simpson Criminal Verdict as a Racially Symbolic Event: A Longitudinal Analysis of Racial Attitude Change

White college students’ racial attitudes were assessed before and after the O. J. Simpson criminal verdict. The authors tested two models, derived from the Symbolic Racism perspective, to examine potential changes in racial attitudes following the verdict. According to the construal model, racial attitudes influence how individuals construe race-related events. Therefore, the construal model suggested that pre-verdict racial attitudes would predict perceptions of the Simpson verdict. The symbolic event model, however, suggested that the verdict itself shaped racial attitudes and that perceptions of the verdict would predict changes in racial attitudes, independent of the effect of pre-verdict racial attitudes. The symbolic event model was largely supported; perceptions of the verdict predicted changes in racial attitudes, and racial attitudes became more crystallized following the verdict. The construal model, however, was only weakly supported; pre-verdict racial attitudes predicted the perceived fairness of the verdict, but only for those whose attitudes were well-crystallized.

Group status, perceptions of agency, and the correspondence bias: Attributional processes in the formation of stereotypes about high and low status groups

The Stereotype Content Model proposes that competence (or alternatively, agency) is a fundamental dimension of stereotypes. According to this model, beliefs about agency are partially due to the status relations between groups, such that high status groups are perceived to possess agency, whereas low status groups are perceived to lack agentic characteristics. Despite the considerable support for this model, the psychological processes that produce these stereotypes have not been fully explored. In the current studies, we examined whether the correspondence bias may be partially responsible for the stereotype that members of low status groups lack agentic characteristics, relative to those who belong to high status groups. Across both studies, a measure of the correspondence bias predicted such stereotypical beliefs, even after accounting for variables that are known to be associated with beliefs about high and low status groups. This effect was observed when beliefs about the status of groups were experimentally manipulated, and when we measured stereotypical beliefs about two sets of actual high and low status groups.