Aversive and Modern Racism: Examining Different Types of ...

Aversive and Modern Racism: Examining Different Types of Prejudice in a Mock Juror Setting Victoria Estrada-Reynolds, Kimberly A. Schweitzer, Elizabeth Ferguson, & Scott Freng University of Wyoming Funded by the APLS Grants-in-aid and the Wyoming Social Justice Research Center Identifying Prejudice From McConahay (1986) Two-Dimensional Model of Prejudice Low Explicit High Explicit High Implicit Low Implicit Modern Racist

Principle Conservat ive Aversive Racist Truly Low Prejudice Son Hing et al. (2008) Aversive and Modern Racism Aversive Racism Motivated to match egalitarian beliefs E.g.: Race salience and juror decisions1 Modern Racism Motivated to not appear prejudiced E.g.: Excuse present in job-hiring decision 2 Sommers & Ellsworth (2001); 2Sears & Kinder (1981; 1985) 1 The Current Study Examine aversive and modern racism in mock-juror

decisions Hypotheses: Discrimination reduced when race is salient for aversive racists Discrimination reduced when no excuse/justification exists for modern racists Method Recruited MTurk participants Read one of eight aggravated assault vignettes1 Defendant race: White or Black Race salience: present or absent You know better than to talk that way about a [black/white] man in front of his friends Justification: Strength of evidence Witness heard something that sounded like a slap/saw victim fall to floor but did not hear a slap Provided verdict Implicit Association Test Modern Racism Scale Sommers & Ellsworth (2000) 1 Demographics 304 MTurk participants

81.9% European American 57.9% Female Age: M = 37.17, SD = 12.85 142 classified as Aversive Racist 162 classified as Modern Racist Results Overall Model 2 (12) = 77.856, p < .001 B SE Wald Pvalue Type of Prejudice 0.355 .310 1.311 .252 Defendant Race

0.518 .304 2.903 .088 Race Salience 0.899 .336 7.154 .007* Slap Heard 2.039 .333 37.41 7

< .001* Defendant Race X Race Salience 0.895 .597 2.252 .133 Defendant Race X Slap Heard 1.068 .616 3.011 .083 Defendant Race X Type of Prejudice 1.858 .627

8.771 .003* Race Salience X Slap Heard 1.530 .691 4.901 .027* Significant 3-Way Interaction Modern Racists Guilt Verdicts 80 80 70 70 60 60

Conviction Rates (%) Conviction Rates (%) Aversive Racists Guilt Verdicts 50 40 30 20 10 0 p < .001 n.s. 50 40 30 20 10 No Slap Black Heard Slap White

0 No Slap Black Heard Slap White Discussion Bend-over-backwards to not appear prejudiced towards African American Defendant Especially in Slap (excuse) condition Excuse condition too weak/ambiguous? Current race relations affecting race salience and responses Examine differing motivations among Modern and Aversive Racists Questions, comments, vague misgivings? Victoria Estrada-Reynolds [email protected] Not significant Defendant Race x Race

Salience Aversive Racists Conviction Rates 60 Modern Racists Conviction Rates 50 45 50 40 35 40 30 30 25 20 20 15 10

10 5 0 Not RS RS White Black 0 Not RS RS White Black Results Guilt Verdicts by Justification Guilt Verdicts by Defendant Race 60 Percentage of Guilty Verdicts

Percentage of Guilty Verdicts 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Black White 50 40 30 20 10 0 No Justification Justification Guilt Verdicts by Race Salience 70

60 Percentage of Guilty Verdicts Def race X Slap 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 Not Race Salient

Race Salient No Slap Heard Slap Black White Race Salience X Type of Prej Def race X Type of Prej 50 45 45 40 40 35 35 30

30 25 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 AR MR Black

White 0 AR Not Race Salient MR Race Salient Race Salience X Slap 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 No Slap Not Race Salient Slap Race Salient