While research suggests that blatant expressions of racism are on the decline, more subtle forms of bias persist (Dovidio & Gartner, 2004; Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002). These biases can be automatic and unintentional, often occurring outside conscious awareness. Studies suggest that developing awareness is the first step to moderating discriminatory thoughts and behaviors (Divine & Monteith, 1993; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004; Durrheim, Hook, & Riggs, 2009; Monteith & Voils, 1998). When White Americans are aware of their biases, they are more likely to adjust their attitudes and alter their behaviors. Crucially, when biases go unacknowledged, there are fewer opportunities to combat unintentional racism. As a result, the tendency to disavow racial biases demands scholarly attention. In order to further research in this area, a way of measuring awareness of racial bias is needed. The purpose of this dissertation was to develop and initially validate the Disavowal of Racial Bias Scale (DRB). A review of the research on racial bias helped generate 38 initial items. An empirical approach was then used to determine an optimal version of the scale. In Phase 1, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of data from 579 participants suggested a 2-factor model with a total of 24 items. The first factor was named Bias Examples because it included statements referring to specific examples of racial bias. The second factor was named Bias Existence because it included statements referring to the general phenomenon of racial bias. In Phase 2, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of data from a second subsample of 579 participants was used to confirm the factor structure identified in Phase 1. Both subscales demonstrated high internal consistency, providing evidence of the DRB's reliability. Further psychometric evaluations provided evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. However, the 2-factor model did not appear to be reasonably consistent with the data as evidenced by a poor model fit. Although there are many promising aspects of the final 24-item DRB, more work is needed to make it a valid measure for future use. Limitations of this study and recommendations for future scale development in this area will be discussed.

Intergroup discrimination is a pervasive fact of life and many factors are proposed to contribute or relate to its existence and expression (e.g. Staub, 2001). Though much research in social psychology has focused on the need for positive self-esteem as an underlying motive, in the past 25 years, evidence for the role of self-esteem in intergroup discrimination has at best proved contradictory (see Long & Spears, 1997; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998). More recently, other motivational constructs for human behaviour have been proposed to play a part in intergroup discrimination (e.g. Abrams & Hogg, 2001). This thesis focuses on the need to belong (or belongingness) as this has long been recognised as a basic human need (e.g. Horney, 1945) and recently, evidence has been provided to support this assumption (e.g. Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Thus the present thesis argues that as a fundamental need, the need to belong (NTB) would be expected to play a role in intergroup discrimination. In support of this assumption, results from some empirical studies are also highly suggestive of a link between intergroup discrimination and the NTB (e.g. Marques & Paez, 1994), though the current research programme is the first to explicitly examine this link. Seven experiments employing the same basic methodology were conducted to investigate the central hypothesis that engaging in intergroup discrimination decreases the NTB. Three experiments supported the hypothesis. Experiments 2 and 3 found that the NTB decreased for New Zealanders who engaged in intergroup discrimination and Experiment 7 found that members of a minimally socially important group showed a decrease in the NTB following intergroup discrimination when measured at a group level, but not at the personal level. Experiment 1 (Chapter 5) investigated the central hypothesis utilizing the minimal group paradigm (MGP). Despite participants exhibiting intergroup discrimination when given the opportunity, there was no significant change in their reported NTB. Thus the results of this experiment did not support the central hypothesis. Experiment 2 (Chapter 6) investigated whether the central hypothesis would be supported if participants were members of a realistic and meaningful social group category (i.e. New Zealanders). Results from this experiment showed that those participants who exhibited intergroup discrimination did in fact show a significant decrease in their NTB. Experiment 3 (Chapter 7) sought to replicate these results and to control for self-esteem effects utilizing New Zealand participants. Again, results supported the central hypothesis and no effect was found for either global or collective self-esteem. To test whether this result would generalize to other social categories, Experiment 4 (Chapter 8) tested whether the NTB would be decreased after women participants engaged in intergroup discrimination. Results found there was no significant difference in the NTB between women who engaged in discrimination and those who did not. Thus the central hypothesis and the results from Experiment 2 and 3 were not supported. To then investigate whether social influence accounted for the contradictory results from Experiments 1-4, Experiment 5 (Chapter 9) required women to publicly or privately state their intergroup discrimination. No significant changes were found in the NTB (from pre- to post- allocation task) for either private or public responding conditions, whether women engaged in intergroup discrimination or not. It was then assessed whether the importance to participants of the social identity in question was a factor. Experiments 6a and 6b (Chapter 10; women and men respectively) compared the NTB of participants with low identification with their social group, to high identifying participants. For both women and men, no significant changes were found in the NTB from pre- to post-allocation task for either high or low identifiers, regardless of whether they engaged in intergroup discrimination. Thus the central hypothesis was again not supported. Finally in Experiment 7, the NTB measure was re-evaluated and items were changed to be more group-oriented, compared to the original more individually-oriented items. The procedure used for Experiment 1 (i.e. MGP) was employed for Experiment 7 (Chapter 11) with participants completing both the personal and group versions of the NTB scale. The results for the modified group NTB scale showed that for participants who engaged in intergroup discrimination, group NTB decreased significantly from pre- to post- allocation task, compared with no significant change for those participants who did not engage in discrimination. No effects were found for either control or experimental participants� responses on the original NTB scale. Thus the central hypothesis and the results from Experiments 2 and 3 were supported. Furthermore, as was found for earlier experiments, there was no effect of either personal or collective self-esteem on the results for Experiments 4- 7. Taken overall, these results indicate that there may be a relationship between intergroup discrimination and the need to belong and that this may be most appropriately assessed using a group level measure of the NTB. Moreover, these results cannot be explained on the basis of self-esteem. Results from Experiments 2 and 3 may also indicate that if the social group category is meaningful enough for the individual (e.g. nationality), significant changes for the NTB at the personal level may occur. Despite the limitations of the present research, these results indicate that the investigation of the relationship between intergroup discrimination and the need to belong may further elucidate the underlying nature of prejudice. A number of possible directions for future research are discussed.

Recently in the psychological field, attitudes are being recognized as existing on the explicit and implicit level (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Aversive racists have been defined as people low in explicit prejudice but high in implicit prejudice (Son Hing, Li, & Zanna, 2002). The purpose of this study was to determine what distinguishes those who are low in prejudice from aversive racists. Participants were compared on eight different constructs: authenticity, moral judgment development, moral identity, nonprejudice, social dominance, authoritarianism, empathy, and social desirability. No differences were found between low prejudice people and aversive racists. People high in explicit prejudice were found to differ from people low in explicit prejudice on authenticity, moral judgment development, moral identity, nonprejudice, social dominance, and authoritarianism.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Delaware, 2009. / Principal faculty advisor: Robert F. Simons, Dept. of Psychology. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--York University, 1999. Graduate Programme in Psychology. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-86). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNQ56233.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Rutgers University, 2009. / "Graduate Program in Global Affairs." Includes bibliographical references (p.192-194).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 171-182). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

Thesis (M.A.)--York University, 1999. Graduate Programme in Social Psychology. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 122-132). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pMQ39248.

Version commerciale de : Habilitationsschrift : Philosophie : Trier : 1980. / Bibliogr. p. 324-334.

Not available / text