archives@tulane.edu / Conventional wisdom suggests people must be willing to admit a problem exists before they can hope to solve it. This may be especially true in the case of implicit prejudice. Unlike explicit prejudice, which is conscious and deliberate, implicit prejudice is often unconscious and counter to what people intend. In addition, implicit prejudice is undesirable and leads people to respond defensively when told they have such prejudice. In this dissertation, I investigated whether social norms that encourage people to admit prejudice and exert effort to control it can be used to increase people’s willingness to admit their own implicit prejudice. In three experiments, participants watched (Experiments 1 and 2) or read about (Experiment 3) other people’s reactions to implicit attitude feedback. Then, participants were told they have an implicit bias favoring Whites over Blacks and responded to questions assessing defensiveness and willingness to admit prejudice. Experiments 1 and 2 found that seeing others acknowledge prejudice decreased people’s defensiveness to feedback about their own implicit attitudes and increased willingness to admit personal prejudice. Experiment 3 manipulated social norms with summary information about a referent group and found that while learning most other people deny prejudice caused participants to believe denying was more normal, overall, the manipulation had little influence on defensiveness or willingness to admit prejudice. Together, these experiments suggest that social norms can influence people’s willingness to admit personally prejudiced implicit attitudes, but to be effective, the example set by others must be vivid. / 1 / Aaron Moss

This study examined the relationship among implicit and explicit measures of prejudice (against African-Americans, homosexuals, and Muslims), Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), Religious Fundamentalism (RF), and Christian Orthodoxy (CO). The implicit measure of prejudice was Facial EMG, which is the measurement of the activity of key facial muscles when participants were exposed to pictures of members of the minority groups, as well as to pictures of the corresponding group. The explicit measure of prejudice was the Social Distance Scale, which measures how willing people are to have someone in a variety of close relationships. The primary hypothesis was that one’s score on the implicit (and some of the explicit) measures of prejudice can be predicted using RF, CO, and RWA. The analyses revealed that RWA was predictive of prejudice against homosexuals and Muslims, but not against African-Americans.

Bien que la discrimination soit devenue illégale et immorale, les recherches ont montré que les comportements discriminatoires subsistent, parfois en se manifestant de manière subtile. Cependant, les processus impliqués dans ces effets sont encore mal connus. En s’appuyant sur une conception émotionnelle du préjugé (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005), l’objectif général de ce travail de thèse était d’investiguer le rôle causal des émotions dans l’émission des comportements discriminatoires, que ce soit au niveau du ressenti émotionnel subjectif mais surtout, au niveau des réactions émotionnelles plus subtiles. La première étude a d’abord montré que les émotions déclarées de colère, de peur et de dégoût médiatisent le lien entre la menace représentée par l’exogroupe et le comportement déclaré envers celui-ci. Au-delà du ressenti émotionnel subjectif, nous émettions l’hypothèse que les premiers instants de la perception de l’exogroupe suffisent à déclencher des réactions émotionnelles (i.e., tendances comportementales), ces dernières entrainant la mise en place d’un comportement discriminatoire involontaire. En s’appuyant sur une organisation en chaine causale expérimentale, les études 3 à 6 ont tout d’abord montré que les tendances comportementales précoces sont déclenchées à partir de l’émotion majoritaire évoquée par l’exogroupe. Les études 7 et 8, en revanche, ne confirment pas le rôle causal des tendances comportementales dans la mise en place des comportements discriminatoires involontaires. Dans l’ensemble, ce travail de recherche apporte des éléments de preuve concernant l’implication précoce des émotions dans le processus de discrimination mais ne permet pas de valider leur rôle médiateur. / Although discrimination is considered illegal and immoral, research has shown that discriminatory behaviors remained present, particularly through subtle behaviors. However, the processes underlying these effects are not clearly understood. Building on an emotional approach of prejudice (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005), the main goal of this thesis was to investigate the causal role of emotions in discriminatory behaviors. The role of emotions was investigated here at the level of subjective feeling but also at the level of more subtle emotional reactions. Study 1 first showed that reported emotions of anger, fear and disgust mediated the link between the perceived threat associated to a social group and the behavior reported toward this group. Beyond subjective feelings, we hypothesized that the perception of an outgroup triggers early emotional reactions (i.e., behavioral tendencies), resulting in unintentional discriminatory behaviors. Consistent with our hypotheses, Studies 3-6 first showed that emotions evoked by the outgroup trigger related early behavioral tendencies. However, Studies 7 and 8 do not support the causal role of early behavioral tendencies in discriminatory behaviors. Overall, our findings provide evidence of early involvement of emotions in the discrimination process but do not support their mediating role.

<p>Three main theoretical approaches to the study of the causation of prejudice can be distinguished within psychological research. The cognitive approach suggests that prejudice is a function of cognitive processes where stereotypic information about social groups, stored in memory, is automatically activated and affects people’s judgements and behavior toward members of the target group. The personality approach suggests that prejudice is a function of people’s personality characteristics. Finally, the social psychological approach emphasizes people’s group membership and group identification as the as major source of causation.</p><p>Previous research has almost entirely focused on only one approach of causation at a time. The focus has also shifted periodically – with attention paid to one approach at each period of time. The present thesis is an attempt to integrate these approaches and suggests an integrative model where the relative contribution of each approach could be assessed. The underlying assumption is that all three approaches are meaningful and that prejudice is a complex phenomenon that is best explained by taking into account all approaches jointly.</p><p>Examining the cognitive approach, Paper I revealed that people are knowledgeable of the cultural stereotypes and that stereotypic information is automatically activated and affects people’s judgments. Paper II (and Paper III) supported the personality approach and revealed that prejudice is highly related to primary personality characteristics and, in line with a central idea in this approach, different types of prejudice (ethnic prejudice, sexism, homophobia, and prejudice toward disabled people) are highly correlated. The results of Paper III revealed the importance of group membership and group identification, supporting the social psychology approach.</p><p>The findings are discussed in relation to previous research and the necessity to integrate various approaches and disciplines to explain psychological phenomena in general and prejudice in particular. Also, implications of the findings for prejudice prevention are discussed.</p>

Three main theoretical approaches to the study of the causation of prejudice can be distinguished within psychological research. The cognitive approach suggests that prejudice is a function of cognitive processes where stereotypic information about social groups, stored in memory, is automatically activated and affects people’s judgements and behavior toward members of the target group. The personality approach suggests that prejudice is a function of people’s personality characteristics. Finally, the social psychological approach emphasizes people’s group membership and group identification as the as major source of causation. Previous research has almost entirely focused on only one approach of causation at a time. The focus has also shifted periodically – with attention paid to one approach at each period of time. The present thesis is an attempt to integrate these approaches and suggests an integrative model where the relative contribution of each approach could be assessed. The underlying assumption is that all three approaches are meaningful and that prejudice is a complex phenomenon that is best explained by taking into account all approaches jointly. Examining the cognitive approach, Paper I revealed that people are knowledgeable of the cultural stereotypes and that stereotypic information is automatically activated and affects people’s judgments. Paper II (and Paper III) supported the personality approach and revealed that prejudice is highly related to primary personality characteristics and, in line with a central idea in this approach, different types of prejudice (ethnic prejudice, sexism, homophobia, and prejudice toward disabled people) are highly correlated. The results of Paper III revealed the importance of group membership and group identification, supporting the social psychology approach. The findings are discussed in relation to previous research and the necessity to integrate various approaches and disciplines to explain psychological phenomena in general and prejudice in particular. Also, implications of the findings for prejudice prevention are discussed.