Liz Redford

Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: II. Intervention Effectiveness Across Time

Implicit preferences are malleable, but does that change last? We tested 9 interventions (8 real and 1 sham) to reduce implicit racial preferences over time. In 2 studies with a total of 6,321 participants, all 9 interventions immediately reduced implicit preferences. However, none were effective after a delay of several hours to several days. We also found that these interventions did not change explicit racial preferences and were not reliably moderated by motivations to respond without prejudice. Short-term malleability in implicit preferences does not necessarily lead to long-term change, raising new questions about the flexibility and stability of implicit preferences. (PsycINFO Database Record

Implicit and explicit evaluations of feminist prototypes predict feminist identity and behavior

Many people who endorse gender equality do not personally identify as feminists. The present research offers a novel explanation for this disconnect by examining people’s attitudes toward feminist prototypes—the central, representative feminist that comes to mind when they think of feminists as a group. Results from two samples support the hypothesis that both implicit and explicit attitudes toward feminist prototypes predict unique variance in feminist identity beyond gender-equality attitudes. Results from a second study show feminist identity to mediate between implicit prototypes and self-reported willingness to engage in feminist behaviors. Lastly, a third study shows feminist identity to mediate between implicit prototypes and actual feminist behavior. This is the first study to specifically examine the role of implicit attitudes and prototype favorability in understanding feminist identity and behavior, and the results suggest that promoting positive prototypes of feminists may be an effective route to encouraging feminist identity.

Perceived moral responsibility for attitude-based discrimination.

This research investigated judgements of moral responsibility for attitude-based discrimination, testing whether a wrongdoers mental states - awareness and foresight - are central determinants of culpability. Participants read about and judged a target person who was described as consciously egalitarian, but harbouring negative attitudes that lead him to treat African Americans unfairly. Two studies showed that participants ascribed greater moral responsibility for discrimination when the target was aware of having negative attitudes than when he was unaware. Surprisingly, moral judgements were equally harsh towards a target who was explicitly aware that his bias could influence his behaviour as a target who was not. To explain this result, a second study showed that the path from awareness to moral responsibility was mediated by perceptions that the target had an obligation to foresee his discriminatory behaviour, but not by perceptions of the targets actual foresight. These results suggest that bias awareness influences moral judgements of those who engage in attitude-based discrimination because it obligates them to foresee harmful consequences. The current findings demonstrate that moral judges consider not just descriptive facts, but also normative standards regarding a wrongdoers mental states.

Retribution as hierarchy regulation: Hierarchy preferences moderate the effect of offender socioeconomic status on support for retribution

People punish others for various reasons, including deterring future crime, incapacitating the offender, and retribution, or payback. The current research focuses on retribution, testing whether support for retribution is motivated by the desire to maintain social hierarchies. If so, then the retributive tendencies of hierarchy enhancers or hierarchy attenuators should depend on whether offenders are relatively lower or higher in status, respectively. Three studies showed that hierarchy attenuators were more retributive against high-status offenders than for low-status offenders, that hierarchy enhancers showed a stronger orientation towards retributive justice, and that relationship was stronger for low-status, rather than high-status, criminal offenders. These findings clarify the purpose and function of retributive punishment. They also reveal how hierarchy-regulating motives underlie retribution, motives which, if allowed to influence judgements, may contribute to biased or ineffective justice systems.

Engendering support: Hostile sexism predicts voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election

This research investigated the role of gender attitudes in the United States 2016 presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The results of three studies (combined N = 2,816) showed that, as expected, Trump voters were higher in hostile and benevolent sexism than were Clinton voters. Even after controlling for political ideology and gender (Studies 1, 2, and 3) and minority group attitudes (Study 3), greater hostile sexism predicted more positive attitudes toward Trump, less positive attitudes toward Clinton, and retrospective reports of having voted for Trump over Clinton (Studies 2 and 3). Benevolent sexism did not predict additional variation in voting behavior beyond political ideology and hostile sexism. These results suggest that political behavior is based on more than political ideology; even among those with otherwise progressive views, overtly antagonistic views of women could be a liability to women—and an asset to men—running for office.

Feminist Identity, Attitudes Toward Feminist Prototypes, and Willingness to Intervene in Everyday Sexist Events:

Many women eschew the feminist label despite believing in gender equality. In order to effectively promote feminist change, it is important to understand the factors involved in feminist attitudes, identification, and behavior. In the present research, we helped clarify the relations among these factors. In a survey of 428 U.S. women, we found that participants with stronger attitudes toward gender equality and more favorable explicit and implicit attitudes toward feminist prototypes were more likely to claim a feminist label. And those who did so reported greater willingness to intervene when confronted with everyday sexist behavior, particularly if they perceived that they personally were vulnerable to the effects of sexism. We suggest that improving attitudes toward feminist prototypes may help promote feminist identification, and informing women about the pervasiveness of sexism, including their personal vulnerability, may promote willingness to act after the feminist label has been adopted. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQs website at http://journals.sagepub.com/page/pwq/suppl/index

The anticipated consequences of legalizing guns on college campuses.

We examined whether gun ownership, and more importantly, the reason for owning a gun, is linked to expectations about what will happen if legislation allows guns on one’s college campus. We sent a web-based survey to students, faculty, and staff at a single southeastern United States university in March 2016. We queried respondents about gun ownership and the potential effects of campus carry laws on personal safety and the educational environment. We grouped respondents (N = 11,390) into gun owners who own guns for protection (protection owners), gun owners who own guns for nonprotection reasons (e.g., sport, collecting; nonprotection owners), and nonowners. Nonprotection owners and nonowners responded similarly and were generally distinct from protection owners. However, all 3 groups reported that legalizing guns on campus would harm the academic atmosphere and diminish feelings of safety when having heated exchanges or evaluating student outcomes. Ironically, protection owners acknowledge these harms yet support legislation allowing guns on campus. Regardless of group, our participants anticipated that allowing guns on campus would largely produce undesirable downstream academic consequences. Lawmakers must find ways to mitigate the possible harmful effects on personal safety and the academic environment, and find solutions that satisfy the safety needs of groups who see guns as source versus a threat to safety.

Empathy and humanitarianism predict preferential moral responsiveness to in-groups and out-groups

ABSTRACT The current research tests whether empathy—sharing others’ emotions—and humanitarianism—recognizing the moral worth of all people—each predict moral responsiveness toward others but in ways that favor in-groups and out-groups, respectively. In Studies 1 and 2, empathy and humanitarianism differentially predicted preferential moral concern for in-groups and out-groups. In Study 3, humanitarianism predicted lower in-group-targeted prosociality and greater out-group prosociality. In Study 4, empathy and humanitarianism predicted perceived moral obligation to in-groups and out-groups respectively. In Study 5, out-group obligation mediated between humanitarianism and allocations to out-group charities, and in-group obligation mediated between empathy and one of two in-group charities. In sum, empathy and humanitarianism are associated with preferential morality via group-based obligation, suggesting that morality could be extended by altering empathy, humanitarianism, or group processes.

Gun attitudes on campus: united and divided by safety needs

ABSTRACT All people share a need for safety. Yet people’s pursuit of safety can conflict when it comes to guns, with some people perceiving guns as a means to safety and others perceiving guns as a threat to safety. We examined this conflict on a U.S. college campus that prohibits guns. We distinguished between people (N = 11,390) who (1) own a gun for protection, (2) own a gun exclusively for reasons other than protection (e.g., collecting, sports), and (3) do not own a gun. Protection owners felt less safe on campus and supported allowing guns on campus. They also reported that they and others would feel safer and that gun violence would decrease if they carried a gun on campus. Non-owners and non-protection owners felt the reverse. The findings suggest that protection concerns, rather than gun-ownership per se, account for diverging perceptions and attitudes about guns and gun control.