No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The behavior and subsequent affect of people low in prejudice were examined in four experiments. In Study 1, 52 people evaluated two targets differing primarily in sexual orientation and then completed mood and prejudice measures. Although people high in prejudice discriminated against a homosexual target, people low and moderate in prejudice favored this target. In Study 2, 57 people were given target intellectual ability information designed to either challenge or not challenge any propensity towards the outgroup favoritism observed in Study 1. Specifically, study participants evaluated either a more qualified homosexual and a less qualified heterosexual (not challenging outgroup favoritism) or a less qualified homosexual and a more qualified heterosexual (challenging outgroup favoritism). Although low prejudiced people favored the homosexual target when he was better qualified, they were unwilling to make this same distinction when the heterosexual target was more qualified. Study 3 was designed to understand if such overcompensation results from a need to restore social justice. Study participants (n = 77) were made to believe their peers were either discriminatory, overcompensatory, or neutral towards a minority member. As expected for low prejudiced people, only by making them believe their peers overcompensate a minority group member, thereby eliminating any extant need to restore social justice, was outgroup favoritism eliminated. Finally, Study 4 assessed the extent to which the low prejudiced person's tendency to overcompensate a minority member rests on a well-internalized system of beliefs. Following a (mortality salience) manipulation designed either to engage or not engage the internalized belief system, 35 low prejudiced people completed the same procedure employed in Study 1. Results revealed increased overcompensation of a homosexual for participants whose internalized beliefs were engaged. Further, in all four studies, participants failed to man

Biracial people are often stereotyped as cold and socially awkward. Two experiments assessed whether the racial context in which they are perceived influences the application of these stereotypes. Participants read about a Black/White student who chose or was assigned a White, Black or Black/White roommate. Roommate race was manipulated via photographs (Experiment 1), or written description (Experiment 2). When photos were provided, roommate race, not the relationship, influenced target evaluations. The biracial target with a White roommate was viewed the least positively and as least similar to participants, implying his minority status was highlighted by his roommate’s race. The written description produced only relationship effects. When the target chose his roommate he was evaluated as warmer, more competent and with more positive regard than when he was assigned a roommate. The results suggest that visual vs. narrative racial contexts produce divergent evaluations of biracial people.

Biracial people are often stereotyped as cold and socially awkward. Two experiments assessed whether the racial context in which they are perceived influences the application of these stereotypes. Participants read about a Black/White student who chose or was assigned a White, Black or Black/White roommate. Roommate race was manipulated via photographs (Experiment 1), or written description (Experiment 2). When photos were provided, roommate race, not the relationship, influenced target evaluations. The biracial target with a White roommate was viewed the least positively and as least similar to participants, implying his minority status was highlighted by his roommate’s race. The written description produced only relationship effects. When the target chose his roommate he was evaluated as warmer, more competent and with more positive regard than when he was assigned a roommate. The results suggest that visual vs. narrative racial contexts produce divergent evaluations of biracial people.

Three hundred and twenty men and women were exposed to five levels of conventional sexism and affirmative action-induced discrimination. No perceptual minimisation of discrimination was found: instead participants linearly maximised the impact of discrimination. New measures of emotional responses to discrimination revealed changes in both internal (depression) and external (anger) negative affect, with varying intensities of anger and depression directed at different targets. Similarly, new measures of behavioural reactions to discrimination revealed more antinormative and collectivistic behavioural intentions than previous research. Minute but consistent effects of frame condition were observed in each sample. Finally, clear differences emerged between the responses of men and women, and between responses in the conventional and affirmative action-induced discrimination conditions.

No description available.