White Privilege Beliefs Predict Attitudes Toward Confederate

Home , Political correctness

White People Problems? White Privilege Beliefs Predict Attitudes Toward Confederate

Monuments

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Science

Nicole B. Stephenson

August 2020

This thesis titled

White People Problems? White Privilege Beliefs Predict Attitudes toward Confederate

Monuments

NICOLE B. STEPHENSON

has been approved for

the Department of Psychology

and the College of Arts and Sciences by

Kimberly M. Rios

Associate Professor of Psychology

Florenz Plassmann

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3

Abstract

STEPHENSON, NICOLE B, M.S., August 2020, Experimental Social Psychology

White People Problems? White Privilege Beliefs Predict Attitudes toward Confederate

Monuments

Director of Thesis: Kimberly M. Rios

Americans have debated the appropriateness of displaying statues of Confederate soldiers since the monuments were popularized in the early 20th century. Only a few research studies have investigated predictors of attitudes toward these controversial statues. In four studies, I establish a causal relationship between White privilege beliefs and attitudes toward Confederate statues. Participants who are induced to experienced increased belief in White privilege report more negative attitudes toward Confederate statues. I also identify both symbolic threat (i.e., feelings of threat related to a group’s culture, values, or identity) and outgroup empathy (i.e., an understanding of an outgroup’s feelings) as parallel mediators of the relationship between White privilege and

Confederate statue attitudes. 4

Dedication

To my parents, Doug and Karen Stephenson, and to the Ohio University psychology

cohort of 2017. I would not be here without your unending love and support. 5

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my advisors, Dr. Mark Alicke, Dr. Kimberly Rios, and Dr.

Dominik Mischkowski, for providing professional guidance and extending grace and good humor toward me during my three-year thesis process. Because of you, I am a better writer and a better learner. 6

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ...... 3 Dedication ...... 4 Acknowledgments...... 5 List of Tables ...... 8 List of Figures ...... 9 Introduction ...... 10 History of the Attitudes toward Confederate Symbols ...... 15 Jim Crow and Civil Rights Era ...... 15 Today’s Debate ...... 16 Previous Research ...... 17 Previously Investigated Predictors of Attitudes toward Confederate Symbols ...... 17 White Privilege as a Predictor of Attitudes toward Confederate Symbols ...... 18 Possible Mediators of the Relationship between White Privilege Beliefs and Confederate Symbol Attitudes ...... 19 Hypotheses ...... 22 Overview of Current Studies ...... 23 Study 1: White Privilege as a Predictor of Attitudes toward Controversial Confederate Symbols...... 24 Method ...... 24 Measures ...... 24 Results ...... 26 Discussion ...... 31 Study 2: Further Exploration of Mechanisms of the Association between White Privilege and Political Symbol Attitudes ...... 33 Method ...... 33 Discussion ...... 37 Studies 3 and 4: Manipulating White Privilege ...... 39 Method ...... 40 Procedure and Materials ...... 40 Results ...... 41 Study 4 ...... 44 7

Method ...... 44 Procedure and Materials ...... 44 Discussion ...... 47 General Discussion ...... 49 Appendix A: All Measures Used in Study 1 ...... 64 Appendix B: New Measures in Study 2 ...... 82 Appendix C: New Measures in Study 3 ...... 88 Appendix D: New Measures in Study 4 ...... 92 8

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 ...... 27 Table 2 ...... 29 9

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1 ...... 31 Figure 2 ...... 37 Figure 3 ...... 43 Figure 4 ...... 47

Introduction

In the United States, the Confederate flag is an object of both great popularity and intense debate. The flag appears in all regions of America, from private front yards to license plates to the official Mississippi state flag. Even so, Americans have debated the appropriateness of displaying the flag since it was popularized during the Jim Crow era and again during the Civil Rights movement. In recent years, the debate over the appropriateness of the Confederate flag has become nuanced even further by the call to remove statues of Confederate soldiers and generals from public places and government property, as roughly 700 statues of Confederate soldiers stand in 31 states and the District of Columbia (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016). Each side’s argument is similar to that of the Confederate flag debate: opponents of keeping these statues in the public space claim that honoring Southern soldiers is paying homage to defenders of slavery; supporters of keeping the statues insist that the statues are about honoring the legacy of their ancestors and remembering their history.

Nevertheless, support for Confederate symbols remains poorly understood. The small number of peer-reviewed articles about support for the Confederate flag identify a few possible predictors of Confederate flag support: namely, racial attitudes, Southern pride, and political views (Reingold & Wike, 1998; Wright & Esses, 2017; Cooper &

Knotts, 2006; Orey, 2004). Additionally, Whites are more likely to endorse the idea that the Confederate flag is a symbol of Southern pride (as opposed to racism) than Blacks

(PRRI, 2017). However, research in this area is still lacking and does not provide a solid consensus as to the origin of one’s support for or opposition to Confederate symbols. 11

In the current studies, I will attempt to identify predictors of attitudes toward

Confederate statues and other controversial political symbols such as the Confederate flag. Specifically, I will focus on belief in White privilege, defined as the belief that

White people receive unearned benefits due to their race, because such beliefs predict support for affirmative action policies, more positive racial attitudes (Swim & Miller,

1999), and more interest in social justice issues (Todd, McConnell, & Suffrin, 2014). I expect that White privilege beliefs will predict attitudes related to Confederate statues such that stronger White privilege beliefs will result in more negative statue attitudes.

Opponents of keeping these statues have characterized the statues as emblems of racial inequality, and hence as symbols of Whites’ unearned privilege in society. This privilege manifests as structural inequality in a number of areas, including school discipline (Civil

Rights Data Collection, 2014), unequal hiring practices (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004), and education and housing inequality (Lipsitz, 2009; Steinhorn & Diggs-Brown, 1999).

In addition, I will identify attitudinal mechanisms underlying the association between belief in White privilege and support for Confederate statues. Specifically, I will focus first on symbolic and realistic threat. Symbolic threat is threat associated with a potential loss of a group’s values or identity, while realistic threat is threat associated with a potential loss of a group’s power and physical resources (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios,

2015). I plan to test the relative contributions of both types of threat perceptions to support for Confederate monuments.

Acknowledging White privilege has an impact on people’s threat responses. Some research has shown that asking White people to acknowledge their racial privilege can induce self-concept threat and increase negative attitudes toward minority groups (Todd, 12

Spanierman, & Aber, 2010). However, framing White privilege in a non-threatening way

(i.e., describing White privilege in terms of “minority disadvantage”) can minimize threat responses (Powell, Branscombe, & Scmitt, 2005) and can increase support for social policies that promote racial equity, such as affirmative action (Chow, Lowery, & Hogan,

2013) and redistribution of wealth (Lowery, Knowles, & Unzueta, 2007). However, so far there has been no research investigating the effects of White privilege beliefs on symbolic and realistic threat in particular. Due to the association between general feelings of threat and White privilege, I argue that White people who have pre-existing beliefs in

White privilege, or are induced to have higher White privilege beliefs, will in turn have reduced feelings of both symbolic and realistic threat. These effects will emerge when

White privilege is framed as minority disadvantage, a non-threatening framing that has been used in the literature to reduce threat responses to White privilege (Lowery,

Knowles, & Unzeuta, 2007; Powell, Bransombe, & Schmitt, 2005).

When feelings of threat are reduced, participants’ attitudes toward Confederate symbols should in turn be affected. Both realistic and symbolic threat predict prejudice and discrimination (Stephan et al., 2005; Morrison et al., 2010). One can imagine the desire to see Confederate statues removed from public spaces as a type of activism focused on furthering racial equality, due to the aforementioned racially charged reasons that the statues were erected in the first place. As a consequence, I measured both realistic and symbolic threat in order to compare the two types of threat and understand how these types of threat are operating. The statues are, in the most literal sense, symbols of American culture and our history (symbolic threat). One could also imagine the 13

statues as an issue of political power (realistic threat). Thus, I hypothesize that both types of threat will be related to attitudes toward Confederate statues.

I will also focus on outgroup empathy, or feeling as though one understands and can relate to an outgroup’s feelings (Batson et al., 1997), as a complementary mechanism. I expect belief in White privilege to positively predict feelings of outgroup empathy, and increased empathy to in turn predict more negative feelings toward

Confederate symbols. If a White person believes that they are privileged due to an uncontrollable factor (skin color), then inherent in that belief is the understanding that non-White people are disadvantaged. No research has directly linked White privilege beliefs to empathetic responding. However, I expect that acknowledgment that another group is disadvantaged compared to one’s own could elicit empathetic concern for the group. Researchers have shown that empathy is an important predictor of political positions such as support for illegal immigrants (Sirin, Valentino, & Villalobos, 2016) and attitudes toward stigmatized and minority groups (Batson et al., 1997; Vescio,

Sechrist, & Paolucci, 2003). Empathetic perspective-taking increases moral action on behalf of a marginalized group and can motivate helping behaviors for members of the group (Batson et al., 2003; Batson et al., 2002). Thus, I expect participants with greater empathetic concern for Black people, who might be negatively affected by the existence of Confederate statues, to have more negative attitudes toward Confederate statues.

In two preliminary studies, I established a correlational association between

White privilege and attitudes toward political symbols such as Confederate statues, and I identified three mechanisms through which that relationship operates—symbolic threat, realistic threat, and outgroup empathy. In two additional studies I manipulated White 14

privilege beliefs in order to establish a causal relationship between White privilege and

Confederate statue threat, as mediated by symbolic threat, realistic threat, and outgroup empathy.

History of the Attitudes toward Confederate Symbols

Jim Crow and Civil Rights Era

Statues honoring Confederate soldiers were uncommon in the years directly after the Civil War. Years later, however, there were two major spikes in construction of

Confederate statues; the majority of the statues were built in the 1910s and 1920s, during which time the stage was being set for racist Jim Crow segregation laws to grip the entire country (Elliott, Southern Poverty Law Center). The second spike in statue construction occurred in the 1950s and 1960s as a direct response to the Black civil rights movement

(Strother, Ogorzalek, & Piston, Washington Post). Support for the Confederate flag has followed a similar trajectory; flown by the states that seceded from the Union in the

1860s in order to preserve the institution of slavery, the Confederate flag did not experience renewed popularity until years after the Civil War ended. The flag was re- popularized with the 1948 rise of the Dixiecrats, a short-lived arm of the Democratic party whose members supported racial segregation and Jim Crow laws. The rise in popularity of the Confederate flag and Confederate statues during these times of racial tension seems to be contrary to the widespread rhetoric that the Confederate flag is simply homage to Southern ancestors and heritage (Strother, Ogorzalek, & Piston,

Washington Post). Indeed, in 1961, the Confederate battle flag was raised at the South

Carolina state capitol, an act which many historians have characterized as a direct response to the burgeoning civil rights movement (Forman, 1991). Resulting from these attempts to re-popularize Confederate symbols, roughly 700 statues of Confederate soldiers stand in 31 states and the District of Columbia today (New York Times, 2016). 16

Today’s Debate

The debate over Confederate symbols was brought back into public consciousness in June 2015, when a White man entered a Black church in South Carolina and murdered nine churchgoers (Washington Post, 2015); police discovered that the murderer had posted videos and pictures on social media that featured him endorsing White supremacist views and posing with the Confederate flag. The violence outraged many opponents of the Confederate flag and ultimately lead to a vote in South Carolina’s

General Assembly to remove the flag from its Capitol (Washington Post, 2015).

Similarly, in August 2017, extreme right-wing activists held a rally to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue in Virginia. The rally, dubbed “Unite the Right,” attracted many protesters and counter-protesters and ultimately resulted in the death of a young woman who was struck by a right-wing protester’s car (New York Times, 2017). Even more recently, the death of George Floyd at the hands of police sparked worldwide protests and renewed calls for the removal of statues of historical figures associated with slavery. In

June 2020, the governor of Mississippi signed an order that retired the Mississippi state flag, the last in the United States to bear the Confederate battle emblem. To date, hundreds of statues have been removed from public view, including a statue of

Christopher Columbus in Columbus, Ohio (NPR, 2020), and Robert E. Lee in Richmond,

Virginia (New York Times, 2020). To defend their continued support for Confederate symbols, “heritage, not hate” has become a mantra for those who display the flag today

(New York Times, 2015). The debate over Confederate symbols continues to have lasting, real-world impacts; thus, it is crucial to better understand the predictors of attitudes toward such symbols. 17

Previous Research

Previously Investigated Predictors of Attitudes toward Confederate Symbols

Some non-experimental evidence supports the notion that one’s race impacts attitudes toward Confederate symbols. White people are generally more supportive of displays of the Confederate flag, and non-White minorities are less so. According to

Public Religious Research Institute (PRRI), an independent, nonpartisan research group,

60 percent of White Americans surveyed viewed the Confederate flag as a symbol of

Southern pride (as opposed to a symbol of racism). Only 15 percent of Black Americans endorsed the Southern pride view, with eighty percent indicating that the flag was a racist symbol (PRRI, 2017).

There are only a handful of psychology research studies on attitudes toward

Confederate symbols such as the Confederate battle flag and Confederate statues. Many of these studies focus on the relation between the Confederate flag and White participants’ racial attitudes. Whether support for the Confederate flag is related to one’s racial attitudes is still unclear. One study found that racial attitudes are an important factor in one’s support or disapproval of the Confederate flag; those who have more racially conservative attitudes (e.g., believing that Black people aren’t working hard enough to overcome their hardships) are more likely to support the display of the flag

(Reingold & Wike, 1998). In addition, participants who were exposed to the Confederate battle flag had more negative attitudes toward Blacks and were less willing to vote for

Barack Obama, the United States’ first Black president (Ehrlinger et al., 2011).

However, there is also evidence that support for Confederate symbols is a product of

Southern pride as opposed to racist attitudes (Wright & Esses, 2017; Cooper & Knotts, 18

2006), although these studies also acknowledge the interplay between region and racial attitudes.

White Privilege as a Predictor of Attitudes toward Confederate Symbols

Because of the lack of research on the topic of Confederate symbols, I wanted to investigate White privilege beliefs as a potential predictor of attitudes toward

Confederate symbols. White privilege is the idea that White people experience unearned societal benefits based solely on their membership in the White racial group (McIntosh,

1998). White people are often loath to acknowledge their racial privilege. Indeed, when

Whites are faced with evidence of racial inequality, they claim to have experienced a larger number of personal hardships than those not exposed to evidence of inequality

(Phillips & Lowery, 2015). This way, they can exempt themselves from benefiting personally from White privilege, while still acknowledging that it exists on a societal level. Another strategy that White people use to manage their racial privilege is distancing themselves from their White identity. When anticipating a racially charged conversation with an African American, Whites’ implicit “White—Self” association diminishes (Marshburn & Knowles, 2018). Denying the existence of privilege or distancing oneself from one’s racial identity leads to insensitivity and hesitancy to act to rectify racial inequality (Knowles, Lowery, Chow, & Unzueta, 2014).

Although White privilege denial is common, acknowledgement of White privilege leads to a number of beneficial outcomes. When acknowledging their privilege, Whites espouse more positive racial attitudes (Swim & Miller, 1999; Stewart et al., 2012), more support for affirmative action policies (Swim & Miller, 1999; Lowery, Chow, Knowles,

& Unzueta, 2012), and more interest in and commitment to social justice causes (Todd, 19

McConnell, & Suffrin, 2014). With these consequences in mind, it seems likely that acknowledgement of White privilege will also affect one’s attitude toward the controversial removal of Confederate statues from public places. In other words, I suspect that when White Americans are induced to acknowledge their privilege in a non- threatening way, they will subsequently exhibit more negative attitudes toward controversial American political symbols such as the Confederate flag and statues of

Confederate soldiers.

Possible Mediators of the Relationship between White Privilege Beliefs and

Confederate Symbol Attitudes

I will now turn to discussion of variables that help explain any relationships between White privilege beliefs and Confederate symbol attitudes: namely, symbolic threat, realistic threat, and outgroup empathy. Importantly, no research has yet investigated the predictive power of White privilege on symbolic and realistic threat specifically, although some past research has investigated the predictive power of White privilege beliefs on other types of threat responses. Lowery and colleagues assert that when White people choose to dismantle their racial privilege (i.e., support policies that attempt to lessen racial disparities), they experience a reduction in threat perception

(Knowles, Lowery, Chow, & Unzueta, 2014). Intergroup threat arises as a consequence of including oneself as a member of a group that has done harm in the past or is currently doing harm to other groups. The authors argue that when White people choose to acknowledge their privilege and work to rectify inequality, they repair their group’s reputation and in turn reduce their threat responses. 20

Specifically, White privilege beliefs may affect realistic and symbolic threat.

Defined in Intergroup Threat Theory (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2015), realistic threat relates to the potential loss of physical resources, including economic or political power

(Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2015). People who experience realistic threat may fear that they may lose control over their group’s concrete resources, such as jobs or economic and political power, to members of an outgroup. For example, in the United States, illegal immigration is a highly divisive political issue, in part due to Americans’ fear that immigrants may be taking jobs that American citizens might need. In contrast, symbolic threat is related to perceived differences between groups’ moral standards, traditions, and culture. For example, Americans who believe that America is a Christian nation may be threatened by an influx of Muslim immigrants due to a belief that Muslims do not hold the same values that Christians do. Both symbolic and realistic threat predict negative attitudes toward a wide range of outgroups, including Muslims (Wirtz, van der Pligt, &

Doosje, 2016; Uenal, 2016), African Americans (Stephan et al., 2002) and illegal immigrants (Murray & Marx, 2013), and attitudes toward a number of political issues, including affirmative action (Renfro, Duran, Stephan, & Clason, 2006) and attitudes toward Brexit (England’s departure from the European Union; Van de Vyver et al.,

2018).

However, no research has investigated the association between White privilege beliefs and attitudes toward Confederate symbols. I suggest that people may experience both symbolic and realistic threat in response to the issue of Confederate monuments.

Individuals who are against the removal of the statues may perceive a loss of American history and tradition, whereas proponents of statue removal may perceive that the statues 21

threaten their American values of equity and justice. Loss of the statues may also induce realistic threat, because of the political power associated with and media coverage afforded to the Confederate monument issue. Thus, both symbolic and realistic threat responses may help explain the relationship between White privilege beliefs and attitudes toward Confederate monuments.

Empathy for outgroup members may also help explain the relationship between

White-privilege and political symbol attitudes. As stated previously, no research has examined White privilege as a predictor of empathy. However, acknowledgment that another group is at a disadvantage should in theory lead to an empathetic response toward the disadvantaged group. In turn, outgroup empathy predicts improved attitudes toward

African Americans (Vescio, Sechrist, & Paolucci, 2003) and other stigmatized groups

(such as the homeless, people with AIDS, and illegal immigrants; Batson et al., 1997;

Sirin, Valentino, & Villalobos, 2016). Based on these findings, I expect that outgroup empathy will act as a mechanism to help explain the White privilege-Confederate symbol attitude relationship.

Hypotheses

The following research studies tested two main hypotheses. First, I hypothesized that belief in White privilege would predict attitudes toward American political symbols, even when controlling for other predictors in our model; namely, racial attitudes, political views, gender, and subjective socioeconomic status. I chose racial attitudes and political views as control variables because of existing research suggesting that they may influence

Confederate statue attitudes (e.g., Reingold & Wike, 1998; Ehrlinger et al., 2011; Wright

& Esses, 2017; Cooper & Knotts, 2006). I controlled for subjective SES because attitudes toward Confederate statues could differ between those who feel they are on the bottom of society and those who feel they are at the top. Furthermore, I expected some combination of symbolic threat, realistic threat, and outgroup empathy would mediate the White privilege-symbol attitude relationship. I tested these hypotheses using both a cross- sectional and an experimental approach to establish a causal relationship between belief in

White privilege and attitudes toward symbols such as Confederate statues. In two pilot studies, I used cross-sectional methods to test these hypotheses. To establish a causal effect of White privilege on political symbol attitudes, and to replicate and expand the mediation established in the previous studies, I conducted two experiments that manipulated White privilege beliefs.

Overview of Current Studies

In Study 1, using a cross-sectional correlational design, I attempted to establish an association between White privilege beliefs and attitudes toward controversial Confederate symbols in America, including monuments dedicated to

Confederate soldiers. I also explored mediating effects of symbolic and realistic threat related to Confederate statues. In Study 2, I attempted to replicate findings from Study 1 and test another potential mediator, outgroup empathy. In Studies 3 and 4, I attempted to establish a causal relationship between White privilege beliefs and Confederate statue attitudes and replicate the mediation established in Study 2.

Study 1: White Privilege as a Predictor of Attitudes toward Controversial

Confederate Symbols

Method

Participants

I recruited 311 undergraduate psychology majors from Ohio University via the online participant recruitment system. I excluded 47 participants due to their identification with a racial/ethnic group other than non-Hispanic White. Thus, the final sample size was 264 (56.3% female). Participants were 19.0 years old on average (SD =

1.01).

Procedure

I asked participants to complete an online survey about their attitudes toward

“displays of political symbols.” After providing informed consent, participants completed a demographics questionnaire, as well as multiple attitudes scales (see Appendix B for a full list of measures). The Ohio University IRB approved all study procedures.

Measures

White Privilege

The White Privilege Scale consists of five items designed to measure participants’ belief in privilege due to their White race, with five-point scale anchors ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (e.g., “White people have certain advantages that minorities do not have in this society”; Swim & Miller, 1999). Higher scores indicate stronger belief in White privilege (α = .88, M = 3.47, SD = .99). 25

Attitudes toward Controversial Confederate Symbols

Our dependent variable was a 6-item, 7-point scale that we designed to measure attitudes towards Confederate symbols in the United States (e.g. “The Confederate flag should not be flown in public places”). This scale was highly reliable (M = 3.44, SD =

1.38, α = .81).

Symbolic and Realistic Threat

I modified a 24-item, 7-point scale designed to measure symbolic and realistic threat toward Black people (Stephan et al., 1999). The modified items were intended to measure realistic threat (6 items; e.g., “Those who want to remove Confederate statues have too much political power in this country”) and symbolic threat (7 items; e.g., “The removal of Confederate statues is detrimental to American values”) related to

Confederate monuments. I view the issue of Confederate monuments as one having to do not only with American tradition and culture (symbolic threat), but also with political power (realistic threat). The scale anchors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree), with higher scores indicating stronger feelings of threat. Both the realistic threat subscale (M = 4.20, SD = 1.04, α = .83) and symbolic threat subscale (M =

4.12, SD = 1.00, α = .75) demonstrated high internal consistency.

Control Measures

Political Views. I used an established three-item measure asking participants to rate their views on social issues, foreign policy, and economic issues, each anchored at 1

(very conservative) and 7 (very liberal) (Craig & Richeson, 2014). I created a composite measure by averaging responses to the three questions (M = 4.17, SD = 1.38, α = .87). 26

Feeling Thermometer. The Feeling Thermometer represents an established measure of racial prejudice (Morrison, Plaut, & Ybarra, 2010). Participants reported their feelings towards different minority subgroups, using the following item: “On a scale of 0

(no warmth at all) to 100 (extreme warmth), how would you describe your feelings toward [Black people, Asian people, Hispanic people, Native American people]?. Higher scores on this scale indicate more positive feelings toward racial/ethnic minorities (M =

84.25, SD = 18.37).

MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status. The MacArthur Scale of

Subjective Social Status (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000) consists of the picture of a ladder with each rung labeled with a number from 1 (lowest rank in society) to 10 (highest rank in society). Participants are asked to place themselves on the ladder based on where they believe they are in life compared to everyone else in the United

States. The scale measures participants’ views of their subjective social status (M = 5.83

SD = 1.62).

Results

Zero-Order Correlations

I calculated Pearson correlation analysis between all predictor variables and my political symbol attitude scale. See Table 1 for all zero-order correlations.

Table 1

Zero-Order Correlations between All Predictor Variables and Outcome Variables (N = 264)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5

1. Political Views --

2. White Privilege .54** --

3. Realistic Threat .63** .56** --

4. Symbolic Threat .64** .57** .89** --

5. Symbol Attitudes .52** .37** .61** .61** --

Note. ** p < .01 28

Main Analyses

To show that White privilege beliefs were predictive of Confederate statue attitudes even when controlling for other variables such as racial attitudes, political views, and subjective SES, I conducted a hierarchical regression analysis. The first block of predictor variables entered into the model consisted of demographic variables: gender and subjective SES. The second block of variables consisted of my main control variables, political views and racial attitudes (as measured by the Feeling Thermometer).

The third block of variables consisted of my main predictor variable, White privilege. As expected, even when controlling for racial attitudes, subjective SES, gender, and political views, White privilege predicted attitudes toward the statues, (β =.17, t = 1.95, p = .053).

Political views were also a significant predictor of attitudes towards Confederate symbols, such that more liberal political views predicted more negative symbol attitudes.

See Table 2 for the full regression model 29

Table 2

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predictive of Attitudes toward Confederate Symbols (Study 2) (N = 312)

Model 1 Model 2

Symbol Attitudes B SE B β B SE B

Gender β - .05 .17 -.01 -.12 .14 -.03

Subjective SES .03 .05 .03 .02 .04 .02

Political views .81 .05 .70 .49 .05 .42**

White privilege .73 .07 .45**

Note. ** p < .01 30

Mediational Analysis

To test my hypothesis that symbolic and realistic threat would mediate the relationship between White privilege beliefs and attitudes toward Confederate statues, I conducted a mediation analysis with symbolic and realistic threat acting as independent mediators of the relationship between White privilege beliefs and Confederate statue attitudes. I tested the indirect effects using a percentile bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples, implemented with the PROCESS macro Version 3 (Hayes Model 4,

2013). The mediation model indicated that the indirect effect via symbolic threat related to Confederate statues was significant, b = .206, SE = .053, 95% CI = .114, .321. Feelings of symbolic threat accounted for 40.5% of the variance in Confederate statue attitudes

(R2= .405). The indirect effect via realistic threat related to the statues was also significant, b = .197, SE = .054, 95% CI = .103, .315. Realistic threat accounted for

41.1% of the variance in Confederate statue attitudes (R2= .411). The total indirect effect of the model was significant, b = .233, SE = .058, 95% CI = .130, .357. See Figure 1 for the mediational analysis.

Figure 1

Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between White privilege and political symbol attitudes as mediated by realistic and symbolic threat, when controlling for gender, subjective SES, racial attitudes, and political views (Study 1). I tested each mediator separately and combined them here for ease of viewing.

Discussion

The results of Study 1 provided evidence of a novel predictor of symbolic and realistic threat (White privilege beliefs), as well as a new consequence: attitudes toward

Confederate monuments. Participants who endorsed higher belief in White privilege exhibited more negative scores on my symbol attitudes measure. Conversely, participants lower in White privilege beliefs had more positive attitudes toward political symbols. I constructed the measure of attitudes towards controversial Confederate symbols using items about political symbols, including the Confederate flag and Confederate statues, which have been subjects of debate and considered by some to be offensive to minorities. 32

Indeed, during the beginning of the civil rights era, many statues were constructed as a sign of resistance to federally enforced racial integration (Azarian & Fesshazion, 2000).

If opposition to the statues in public places can be construed as a social justice movement designed to empower Black people and support racial equality, my results are consistent with previous literature that suggests acknowledging White privilege predicts more support for other social policies that benefit minorities, including affirmative action

(Swim & Miller, 1999) and more interest in and commitment to social justice issues

(Todd, McConnell, & Suffrin, 2014).

The association between belief in White privilege and attitudes towards controversial Confederate symbols remained significant even after controlling for political views (previously found to influence attitudes toward the Confederate flag;

Orey, 2004), gender, subjective SES (Adler et al., 2000), and racial attitudes. These findings show that belief in White privilege is a unique predictor of attitudes toward

Confederate symbols and can explain support or opposition to the symbols in people all across the political spectrum.

I also explored potential mediators of the relationship between White privilege and symbol attitudes. Symbolic and realistic threat toward the statues were independent mediators of the relationship between White privilege beliefs and symbol attitudes. In the first study, I created my own measure to specifically address threat related directly to the issues of Confederate statues. Although this measure provided explanatory power for the

White privilege-statue attitudes relationship, I wanted to look at a more general type of threat (i.e. from Blacks to Whites) in my next study.

Study 2: Further Exploration of Mechanisms of the Association between White

Privilege and Political Symbol Attitudes

I conducted a second study to replicate the findings in Study 1 and to expand these findings by further exploring potential mechanisms underlying the relationship between White privilege and symbol attitudes. The symbolic and realistic threat measures in Study 1 were specific to the issue of Confederate statue removal. In Study 2, I wanted to examine a more general kind of threat (i.e., from Blacks to Whites). I also included a measure of outgroup empathy (empathy from White people toward Black people) specifically related to Confederate statues. Empathy diminishes outgroup prejudice and stereotyping (Finlay & Stephan, 2000) and is positively correlated with attitudes toward marginalized groups (Batson et al., 1997). Thus, I hypothesized that empathy may help further explain the relationship between White privilege beliefs and political symbol attitudes. To reduce burden on my participants, I eliminated some measures from Study 1 that had little or no predictive power on the outcome variable.

Method

Participants

I recruited 425 workers from Amazon’s MechanicalTurk System. All participants received $.60 for their time (based on MTurk recommendations, $.20 for every 5 minutes of participation). As in Study 1, I eliminated 113 participants who identified with a racial/ethnic group other than non-Hispanic White, leaving a final sample of 312 participants (mean age = 38.3 years, SD = 12.7; 49.0% female). 34

Procedure

As in Study 1, participants completed a number of demographic items and attitude measures in an online format. I included a number of measures from Study 1, including

White privilege and political views. The main outcome variable was my measure of political symbol attitudes which I also had used in Study 1. In addition, I wanted to continue to explore potential mediators of the relationship between White privilege and attitudes towards Confederate symbols established in the previous study. Therefore, I included two new measures.

Measures

Outgroup Empathy Scale. I created a five-item scale designed to measure participants’ feelings of empathy for Black people who might view a Confederate monument, e.g., “We should not display the Confederate flag because of how it must make Black people feel.” The scale was loosely inspired by a study that described four types of empathy, one of which was the imagine-other perspective (Batson & Ahmad,

2009). Put simply, I asked participants to imagine how a Black person might feel when viewing a Confederate statue. The scale anchors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree); higher scores on this measure indicated more outgroup empathy (M =

4.29, SD = 1.02, α =.89).

Realistic and Symbolic Threat Scale. This established 24-item scale measures feelings of realistic threat—a perceived threat “to the very existence of the ingroup, threats to the political and economic power of the ingroup, and threats to the physical or material well-being of the ingroup or its members” (Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999, e.g., “Blacks hold too many positions of power and responsibility in this country”). This 35

scale also measures symbolic threat—“threats to the ingroup’s worldview” (Stephan,

Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999; e.g., “Whites and Blacks have very different values”). The scale anchors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger feelings of realistic threat (M = 2.41, SD = 1.32, α = .96) and symbolic threat (M = 2.99, SD = 1.34, α = .94).

Results

Hierarchical Regressions

To test the effects of White privilege on political symbol attitudes, I conducted a hierarchical linear regression analysis. I entered gender, subjective SES, and political views into the first block. In a second block, I entered my main predictor variable, White privilege. As in Study 1, White privilege higher White privilege beliefs predicted significantly more negative attitudes toward controversial political symbols (β = .453, p

<.001). See Table 3 in Appendix A for the regression coefficients.

Mediation Analyses

To test my hypothesis that feelings of symbolic threat and outgroup empathy would mediate the relationship between White privilege beliefs and attitudes toward

Confederate statues, I tested a mediation model with symbolic threat, realistic threat, and outgroup empathy acting as parallel mediators. As in Study 1, I tested the indirect effects using a percentile bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples, implemented with the PROCESS macro Version 3 (Hayes Model 4, 2013).

The mediation model indicated that the indirect effect via symbolic threat toward

Black people was significant, b = .127, SE = .040, 95% CI = .055, .215. Feelings of symbolic threat 36

accounted for 18.4% of the variance in Confederate statue attitudes (R2= .184). The indirect effect via outgroup empathy (for Black people who view Confederate symbols) was also significant, b = .565, SE = .067, 95% CI = .437, .698. Feelings of outgroup empathy accounted for 45.7% of the variance in Confederate statue attitudes (R2= .457). The indirect effect via realistic threat was not significant, b = -.039, SE = .042, 95% CI = -.132, .036. The overall indirect effect of the three mediators was significant, b = .653, SE = .068, 95% CI

= .522, .788. See Figure 2 for the mediation model.

Figure 2

Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between White privilege and political symbol attitudes as mediated by outgroup empathy, symbolic threat, and realistic threat when controlling for gender, subjective SES, and political views (Study 2). I tested each mediator separately and combined them here for ease of viewing.

Discussion

Study 2 replicated the results from Study 1: Belief in White privilege predicted attitudes toward Confederate symbols, even when controlling for gender, subjective SES, and political views. The White privilege-Confederate symbol attitudes association was explained by parallel mediation of symbolic threat and outgroup empathy. Previous research has shown that while realistic and symbolic threat are often highly correlated

(Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2015), sometimes outgroups can elicit one type of threat but not the other (Morrison & Ybarra, 2008). The mean realistic threat score in this study was low (M = 2.41 on a 7-point scale), which could indicate a floor effect. As mentioned 38

previously, the threat measures used in Study 1 and Study 2 were different in that Study 1 specifically examined the issue of Confederate statues, whereas Study 2 looked more generally at threat related to Black people. I measured realistic threat again in Study 3 to examine the effect in a different sample.

Studies 3 and 4: Manipulating White Privilege

In two additional studies, I manipulated White privilege beliefs to establish a causal relationship between White privilege and attitudes toward Confederate statues, as mediated by symbolic threat, realistic threat, and outgroup empathy. In both studies, participants who were induced to experience higher White privilege beliefs reported more negative attitudes toward Confederate statues and other controversial political symbols.

The methods in both studies were similar, though not identical; I intended for Study 4 to be a high-powered replication of the main effect of Study 3. As I noted earlier, the threat measures related to Black people in Studies 2 and 3 resulted in floor effects, possibly due to respondents’ social desirability concerns. In Study 4, then, I wanted to extend the mediation model by adjusting the realistic and symbolic threat measures to once again deal specifically with the issue of Confederate statues (as in Study 1).

In past research, chronic White privilege beliefs have been associated with more support for programs such as affirmative action and more positive racial attitudes (Swim

& Miller, 1999); however, inducing White privilege beliefs can also lead to negative outcomes such as threat or disengagement (Lowery & Wout, 2010; Lowery, Chow,

Knowles, & Unzueta, 2012). To avoid those negative outcomes, I framed White privilege as minority disadvantage, which has reduced defensiveness and threat responses in White participants in past research (Lowery & Wout, 2010; Lowery, Chow, Knowles, &

Unzueta, 2012). Using a non-threatening framing technique allowed me to test the consequence of White privilege beliefs on attitudes toward Confederate statues and political symbols more generally. I also measured the same potential mediators that I 40

measured in Study 2: namely, outgroup empathy, symbolic threat, and realistic threat. I hoped to replicate findings from Study 2 and measure realistic threat in a new sample.

Method

Participants

I recruited 492 undergraduate psychology majors from Ohio University via the online participant recruitment system. I excluded 88 participants due to their identification with a racial/ethnic group other than non-Hispanic White. Thus, the final sample size was 404 (64.4% female). Participants were 19.3 years old on average (SD =

1.30).

Power Analysis

I conducted an a priori power analysis for a one-way ANOVA using G*Power3. I estimated a small effect size of .20, a power level of .95, and α = .05. The power analysis indicated a total n of 328, which I exceeded.

Procedure and Materials

After participants provided informed consent, I induced White privilege beliefs

(or lack thereof) by asking participants to read one of two fabricated PsychologyToday articles. One article described minority groups as being disadvantaged in the job market

(e.g. “Relative to equally qualified Whites, being a minority decreases the chance of being hired for many positions”), and the other was about minority groups having job market advantages (e.g., “Relative to equally qualified minorities, being White decreases the chance of being hired for many positions due to affirmative action”; See Appendix C for the articles). The article was ostensibly published earlier in the year on the

PsychologyToday website (the manipulation was inspired by Lowery, Chow, Knowles, & 41

Unzueta, 2014, who asked participants to read a description of a fictitious consulting firm who favored either Whites or minorities in their hiring practices). After reading the article, participants wrote “one or two additional ways that White people (minorities) are disadvantaged compared to minorities (White people),” as a manipulation reinforcement.

Next, participants completed the outgroup empathy measure used in Study 2, as well as shortened versions of the realistic and symbolic threat scales. (I used shortened versions to reduce burden on participants and also to keep the content of the manipulation as fresh in participants’ minds as possible while they completed these measures; See Appendix C for the full measures). I treated these scales as potential mediators of the White privilege- statue threat relationship as I did in Study 2.

Another manipulation reinforcement followed, asking participants to describe the main points of the article they read earlier. Participants then completed the 4-item political symbol attitudes measure previously described in this paper. Next, participants provided demographic information. Finally, participants were debriefed on the true nature of the study.

Results

One-Way ANOVA

To test the casual effect of White privilege on political symbol attitudes, I conducted a one-way analysis of variance. The independent variable was condition

(White privilege or minority privilege) and the dependent variable was attitudes toward

Confederate symbols. The ANOVA revealed that participants in the White privilege condition reported significantly more negative attitudes toward Confederate symbols than 42

those in the minority privilege condition, F(1, 402) = 4.204, p = .041, thus supporting the hypothesis.

Mediation Analysis

To test my hypothesis that feelings of symbolic threat, realistic threat, and outgroup empathy would mediate the relationship between White privilege beliefs and attitudes toward Confederate statues, I conducted a mediational analysis with symbolic threat, realistic threat, and outgroup empathy as parallel mediators.. I tested the indirect effects of outgroup empathy, symbolic threat, and realistic threat using a percentile bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples, implemented with the PROCESS macro Version 3.1 (Hayes Model 4, 2013).

The results of the mediation model indicated that the overall indirect effect of the three mediators was not significant, b = -.081, SE = .114, 95% CI = -.305, .137, nor were the indirect effects of the three scales separately. Summary statistics for outgroup empathy, realistic threat, and symbolic threat, respectively, are as follows: bs = -.074; .011; -.017; SEs =

.109; .020; .018; 95% CIs = -.290, .134; -.025, .057; -.062, .010. See Figure 3 for the mediation model.

Figure 3

Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between condition (White privilege or minority privilege) and political symbol attitudes as mediated by outgroup empathy, symbolic threat, and realistic threat (Study 3). I tested each mediator separately and combined them here for ease of viewing.

Study 4

Method

Participants

I recruited 575 workers from Amazon’s MechanicalTurk System. All participants received $1.00 for their time. As in all previous studies, I eliminated 40 participants who identified with a racial/ethnic group other than non-Hispanic White, leaving a final sample of 535 participants (mean age = 39.7 years, SD = 13.0; 54.4% male).

Power Analysis

I conducted an a priori power analysis for a one-way ANOVA using G*Power3.

Based on the effect size of .21 in Study 3, I estimated a small effect of .20, a power level of .95, and α = .05. The power analysis indicated a total n of 328, which I exceeded.

Procedure and Materials

The procedure in Study 4 was nearly identical to that of Study 3, with two exceptions. In Study 3, the items in the symbolic and realistic threat scales referred to threat related to Black people (e.g., “Blacks hold too many positions of power in this country”) as they did in Study 2; whereas in Study 4, I edited the items to refer to threat related to Confederate statues in particular (e.g., “Opponents of Confederate statues hold too many positions of power in this country”). I made the change to this measure to capture threat related to the specific issue at hand (Confederate monuments) as opposed to Black people in general. I also changed the title of the fabricated articles slightly to ensure that the direction of the phrasing was not responsible for the results of Study 3

(See Appendix E). Specifically, in Study 3, the titles of the two articles were “Is Minority 45

Privilege Real?” and “Is Minority Disadvantage Real?” In Study 4, the titles were changed to “Is White Privilege Real?” and “Is White Disadvantage Real?”

Results

One-Way ANOVA

To test the casual effect of White privilege on political symbol attitudes, I conducted a one-way analysis of variance. The independent variable was condition

(White privilege or minority privilege) and the dependent variable was attitudes toward

Confederate symbols. Participants in the White privilege condition reported significantly more negative attitudes toward Confederate symbols than those in the minority privilege condition, F(1, 534) = 8.465, p = .004. These results replicate the findings from Study 3.

Mediation Analysis

To test my hypothesis that feelings of symbolic threat, realistic threat, and outgroup empathy would mediate the relationship between White privilege beliefs and attitudes toward Confederate statues, I again conducted a parallel mediational analysis. I tested the indirect effects of outgroup empathy, symbolic threat, and realistic threat on the relationship between White privilege beliefs and Confederate statues attitudes using a percentile bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples, implemented with the

PROCESS macro Version 3.1 (Hayes Model 4, 2013).

The indirect effect via outgroup empathy was significant, b = -.305, SE = .105,

95% CI = -.517, -.102. Feelings of outgroup empathy toward Black people viewing

Confederate statues accounted for 1.7% of the variance in Confederate statue attitudes

(R2= .017). The indirect effect via symbolic threat was significant, b = -.108, SE = .042,

95% CI = -.197, -.031. Feelings of 46

symbolic threat related to Confederate statues accounted for 1.5% of the variance in

Confederate statue attitudes (R2= .015). The indirect effect via realistic threat was not significant, b = .033, SE = .032, 95% CI = -.030, .096. See Figure 3 for the mediation model. This mediation pattern replicates the results of Study 2, suggesting that realistic threat does not provide explanatory power to the White privilege-Confederate statue attitudes relationship.

Figure 4

Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between condition (White privilege or minority privilege) and political symbol attitudes as mediated by outgroup empathy, symbolic threat, and realistic threat (Study 4). I tested each mediator separately and combined them here for ease of viewing.

Discussion

Studies 3 and 4 established a causal relationship between White privilege beliefs and attitudes toward Confederate statues and other political symbols. In both studies, participants who were induced to experience heightened belief in White privilege reported more negative attitudes toward Confederate symbols. These results replicate and expand our correlational findings in the first two studies. To the author’s knowledge, this is the first 48

study to establish a causal link between White privilege beliefs and Confederate statue attitudes.

Studies 3 and 4 diverged in their results of the mediation analysis. In Study 3, none of the proposed mediators significantly impacted the relationship between White privilege and Confederate statue attitudes. However, in Study 4, outgroup empathy and symbolic threat significantly mediated the relationship between White privilege beliefs and attitudes toward Confederate statues. These results are likely a product of the different types of threat I measured in the two studies. In Study 3, the symbolic and realistic threat measures were related to Black people, while in Study 4 they pertained to the issue of Confederate statues specifically. It appears that social desirability concerns may explain the discrepancy between the two studies. Indeed, the current racial climate in the United, admitting to any kind of racial bias is especially objectionable. The same explanation can be extended to outgroup empathy. After answering racially explicit questions in the threat measure, respondents in Study 3 may have exaggerated their empathy for Black Americans, leading to a ceiling effect. I expand on this issue in more detail in the General Discussion.

General Discussion

Across four studies, I obtained strong support for White privilege as a predictor of attitudes toward Confederate symbols. In Studies 1 and 2, White privilege beliefs significantly predicted attitudes toward Confederate symbols, such that those who endorsed greater belief in the existence of White privilege had more negative views of

Confederate statues. In Studies 3 and 4, I established a causal relationship between White privilege beliefs and Confederate statue attitudes. This preliminary evidence suggests that when White Americans are induced to increase their belief in White privilege, their support of Confederate statues wanes. This study is the first of its kind and establishes

White privilege beliefs as a novel cause of attitudes toward the existence of Confederate statues in public places in the United States.

The predictive power of White privilege beliefs on attitudes toward Confederate political symbols helps us understand why the issue of Confederate statues has been so hotly debated in the past several years. If White people believe that they have advantages over other groups based solely on their skin color, they may find the presence of historically problematic political symbols to be especially disturbing. On the other hand, if a White person feels as though they are on equal footing with minority groups, the idea of dismantling symbols that they might regard as part of their history could be particularly aversive.

In addition, the relationship between White privilege beliefs and statue attitudes was mediated by a combination of symbolic threat and outgroup empathy, although results differed across studies (I discuss the discrepancies in more detail later). It appears that when threat is reduced and empathy is increased, statue support decreases. For White 50

privilege believers, removing historical monuments may not induce symbolic threat because of the perception that White people already have more advantages than they deserve. In addition, a person who strongly believes that White skin is an advantage in everyday life may have increased empathy for Black people. Empathy, in turn, increases support for actions that help the disadvantaged group (Batson et al., 2002). On the other hand, if one already feels as though they have no advantages over any other group (low

White privilege beliefs), removing political emblems may be particularly threatening because of a perceived loss of culture, history, and political power. Likewise, if one has low belief in White privilege, then there is no reason to feel empathy for outgroups, because they are not a disadvantaged group.

As mentioned in the discussion of Studies 3 and 4, the effects of the proposed mediation model differed across the four studies. Specifically, symbolic threat mediated the White privilege-statue attitudes relationship in Studies 1, 2, and 4, but not in Study 3.

Outgroup empathy mediated the main effect in Studies 2 and 4, but not in Study 3.

Lastly, realistic threat was a significant mediator only in Study 1, where outgroup empathy was not included. I believe that this discrepancy can be attributed in part to the differences in the symbolic and realistic measures I used in the studies. In Studies 1 and

4, the threat items were tailored specifically to address the issue of Confederate statues, while in Studies 2 and 3 the threat items pertained to Black people as a group.

Participants’ anti-racist concerns could be to blame here. Studies 3 and 4 involved an experimental manipulation that dealt specifically with the issue of racial inequality in the workplace. Participants may have been alerted to the nature of the study and responded accordingly to the threat measures. Although I tried to eliminate this 51

possibility by excluding participants who seemed resistant to the manipulation (e.g., left a comment such as, “That article was complete bunk,”) some participants may nevertheless have understood the nature of the study and responded to the threat items so as to not appear racist. Indeed, some of the items in the threat scales are especially overt (e.g.,

“Whites do not get as much respect from Blacks as they deserve”). In the current

American cultural climate, White respondents may have been hesitant to reveal their true feelings about Black people for social desirability reasons. In contrast, the threat measures in Studies 1 and 4 pertained to the issue of Confederate monuments. Although fierce debate continues over the monuments, I would not expect the same level of participant social desirability concerns when responding to questions about Confederate statues. A one-way ANOVA supports this hypothesis: the mean symbolic threat score was significantly higher in Study 4 than in Study 3, F(1, 937) = 195.11, p <.001. The same results emerged for realistic threat, F(1, 937) = 625.52, p <.001.

Future studies should continue to explore mediators of the White privilege – statue attitudes relationship. Perhaps other kinds of threat could further explain this relationship; group-image threat could be particularly relevant here. That type of threat occurs when members of a group feel that their group reputation has been sullied in some way (Knowles, Lowery, Chow, & Unzueta, 2014). The authors suggest that when members of the threatened group work to repair their reputation, group-image threat is reduced. Belief in White privilege may increase group image threat, but that threat could be reduced by endorsing more negative attitudes toward Confederate statues. The current research also did not explore moderators of the relationship between White privilege beliefs and Confederate statue attitudes. Future studies should identify types of people 52

whose Confederate statue attitudes may not be impacted by White privilege education, or groups who may be more greatly impacted than others. For example, the White privilege manipulation may not work as well in people for whom being White is an important part of their identity. If psychologists can identify specific types of people who may be more strongly impacted by learning about White privilege, real-world racial educators can tailor their efforts to more effectively reach many different types of people.

These findings are timely in the current world, with the discourse around the appropriateness of Confederate statues still seeming to accelerate. Even from the time I began writing this manuscript to the date of completion, support for the removal of these statues has increased. One poll notes a 19-point swing from August 2017, when 39% of

American voters supported their removal, to June 2020, when 52% of voters supported removal (Quinnipac University, 2020). In June 2020, the Mississippi state legislature announced that the it would retire its current flag, the last in the nation to include an emblem of the Confederacy (New York Times, 2020). The results of the current research may help to inform policy initiatives around the country that seek to increase understand between the opposing sides of this issue. By educating White Americans about White privilege in a non-threatening way, threat may be reduced and empathy for Black

Americans increased. This kind of education may reduce the extreme polarization that currently exists in the debate about Confederate statues. 53

References

Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ikovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of

subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological

functioning: Preliminary data in healthy White women. Health Psychology, 19(6),

586-592.

Azarian, A. J., & Fesshazion, E. (2000). The state flag of Georgia: The 1956 change in its

historical context. Senate Research Office.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action:

Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group?

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1656-1666.

Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how

another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751-758.

Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., Carpenter, A., Dulin, L., Harjusola-Webb, S., Stocks, E.

L., Gale, S., Hassan, O., & Sampat, B. (2003). “…As you would have them do

unto you”: Does imagining yourself in the other’s place stimulate moral action?

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1190-1201. 54

Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C.,

Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can

feelings for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105-118.

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than

Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment in labor market discrimination. American

Economic Review, 94(4), 991-1013.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence

of racial inequality in America. New York, New York: Rowan & Littlefield.

Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict: When does ingroup

love become outgroup hate? David Wilder (Ed.), Social Identity, Intergroup

Conflict, and Conflict Reduction (17-41), New York, New York: Oxford

University Press.

Chow, R. M., Lowery, B, S., & Hogan, C. M. (2013). Appeasement: Whites’ strategic

support for affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(3),

332-345.

Cooper, C. A., & Knotts, H. G. (2006). Region, race, and support for the South Carolina

Confederate flag. Social Science Quarterly, 87(1), 142-154.

Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. On the precipice of a ‘majority-minority’ America:

Perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White

Americans’ political ideology. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1189-1197. 55

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of

psychpathology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Diaz, P., Saenz, D. S., & Kwan, V. S. (2011). Economic dynamics and changes in

attitudes toward undocumented Mexican immigrants in Arizona. Analyses of

Social Issues and Public Policy, 11(1), 300-313.

Dumont, K., & Waldzus, S. (2014). Group-based guilt and reparation in the context of

social change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(4), 331-341.

Ehrlinger, J., Plant, E. A., Columb, C J., Goplen, J. L., Kunstman, J. W., & Butz, D. A.

(2011). How exposure to the Confederate flag affects willingness to vote for

Barack Obama. Political Psychology, 32(1), 131-146.

Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of

empathy on racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1720-

1737.

Foreman, J. (1991). Driving Dixie down: Removing the Confederate flag from southern

state capitols. Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, 505.

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on a

different set of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

96, 1029-1046.

Gunter, B., & Kizzire, J. (2016). Whose heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy.

Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved from

https://www.splcenter.org/20190201/whose-heritage-public-symbols-confederacy 56

Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and below center-right: Ideological

narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 110-119.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation,

moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based

approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Himmelstein, J. L., & McRae, J. A. (1988). Social issues and socioeconomic status. The

Public Opinion Quarterly, 52(4), 492-512.

Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E.,

Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation:

Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new

SDO scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003-1028.

Jones. B. (2015). The Confederate flag is a matter of pride and heritage, not hatred. The

New York Times.

Knowles, E. D., & Lowery, B. S. (2011). Meritocracy, self-concerns, and Whites’ denial

of racial inequity. Self and Identity, 11, 202-222.

Knowles, E. D., Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M., & Unzueta, M. M. (2014). Deny, distance,

or dismantle? How White Americans manage a privileged identity. Perspectives

on Psychological Science, 9(6), 594-609.

Knowles, E. D., & Peng, K. (2005). White selves: Conceptualizing and measuring a

dominant-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(2),

223-241. 57

Lipsitz, G. (2009). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit

from identity politics, revised and expanded edition. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:

Temple University Press.

Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M., Knowles, E. D., & Unzueta, M. M. (2012). Paying for

positive group esteem: How inequity frames affect Whites’ responses to

redistributive policies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2),

323-336.

Lowery, B. S., Knowles, E. D., & Unzueta, M. M. (2007). Framing inequity safely:

Whites’ motivated perceptions of racial privilege. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 33(9), 1237-1250.

Lowery, B. S., & Wout, D. A. (2010). When inequality matters: The effect of inequality

frames on academic engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

98(6), 956-966.

Marquardt, D. W. (1970). Generalized inverses, ridge regression, biased linear

estimation, and nonlinear estimation. Technometrics, 12(3), 591-612.

Marshburn, C. K., & Knowles, E. D. (2018). White out of mind: Identity suppression as a

coping strategy among Whites anticipating racially charged interactions. Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(6), 874-892.

McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. New York, New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Morrison, K. R., Plaut, V. C, & Ybarra, O. (2010). Predicting whether multiculturalism

positively or negatively influences White Americans’ intergroup attitudes: The 58

role of ethnic identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,

1648-1661.

Murray, K. E., & Marx, D. M. (2013). Attitudes toward unauthorized immigrants,

authorized immigrants, and refugees. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority

Psychology, 19(3), 332-341.

Orey, B. D. (2004). White racial attitudes and support for the Mississippi state flag.

American Politics Research, 32(1).

Peetz, J., Gunn, G. R., & Wilson, A. E. (2010). Crimes of the past: Defensive temporal

distancing in the face of past in-group wrongdoing. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 598-611.

Powell, A. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2004). Inequality as ingroup

privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt

and interracial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, (31)4, 508-

521.

Phillips, L. T., & Lowery, B. S. (2015). The hard-knock life? Whites claim hardships in

response to racial inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 12-18.

Preston, J. & Epley, N. (2005). Science and God: An automatic opposition between

ultimate explanations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 238-241.

Raijman, R., Semyonov, M., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Do foreigners deserve rights?

Determinants of public views toward foreigners in Germany and Israel. European

Sociological Review, 19(4), 379-392.

Reingold, B., & Wike, R. S. (1998). Confederate symbols, Southern identity, and racial 59

attitudes: The case of the George state flag. Social Science Quarterly, 79(3), 568-

580.

Renfro, C. L., Duran, A., Stephan, W. G., & Clason, D. L. (2006). The role of threat in

attitudes toward affirmative action and its beneficiaries. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, (36)1, 41-74.

Rios, K. (2013). Right-wing authoritarianism predicts prejudice against “homosexuals”

but not “gay men and lesbians”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

49(6), 1177-1183.

Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of

national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral

violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 698-711.

Rojas, R. (2020). Mississippi lawmakers vote to retire state flag rooted in the

Confederacy. The New York Times.

Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., & Yom-Tov, A. (2002). Labor market competition,

perceived threat, and endorsement of economic discrimination against foreign

workers in Israel. Social Problems, 49(3), 416- 431.

Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and

intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group

dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 476-490.

Sirin, C. V., Valentino, N. A., & Villalobos, J. D. (2017). The social causes and political

consequences of group empathy. Political Psychology, 38(3), 427-448. 60

Sixty-eight percent say discrimination against Black Americans a “serious problem”;

Slight majority support removing Confederate statues. 17 June, 2020. Retrieved

from https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3663

Steinhorn. L., & Diggs-Brown, B. (1999). By the color of our skin: The illusion of

integration and the reality of race. New York, New York: Dutton.

Stephan, W. G., Boniecki, K. A., Ybarra, O., Bettencourt, A. Ervin, K. S., & Jackson, L.

A. et al. (2002). The role of threats in racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242-1254.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). "Intergroup Threat Theory". In

Nelson, Todd D. Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination.

Psychology Press. Taylor and Francis Group. p. 44.

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra. O., & Rios, K. R. (2015). “Intergroup Threat Theory.” In

Nelson, Todd D. Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination.

Psychology Press. Taylor and Francis Group. p. 516.

Stewart, T. L., Latu, I. M., Branscombe, N. R., Phillips, N. L., & Denney H. T. (2012).

White privilege awareness and efficacy to reduce racial inequality improve White

Americans’ attitudes toward African Americans. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1),

11-27. 61

Strother, L., Ogorzalek, T. Piston, S. (2017). The Confederate flag largely disappeared

after the Civil War. The fight against civil rights brought it back. Washington

Post.

Sutton, M. L. (2015). Social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism as

predictors of prejudice and discrimination against Muslims. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 76(2-B).

Swim, J.K., & Miller, D. L. (1999). White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for

attitudes toward affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

25, 500-514.

Todd, N. R., McConnell, E. A., & Suffrin, R. L. (2014). The role of attitudes toward

White privilege and religious beliefs in predicting social justice interest and

commitment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(1), 109-121.

Todd, N. R., Spanierman, L. B., & Aber, M. S. (2010). White students reflecting on

Whiteness: Understanding emotional responses. Journal of Diversity in Higher

Education, 3(2), 97-110.

Uenal, F. (2016). Disentangling islamophobia: The differential effects of symbolic,

realistic, and terroristic threat perceptions as mediators between social dominance

orientation and islamophobia. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(1),

66-90.

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014). Civil Rights Data

Collection: Data Snapshot (School Discipline). 62

Van de Vyver, J., Leite, A. C., Abrams, D., & Palmer, S. B. (2018). Brexit or Bremain?

A person and social analysis of voting decisions in the EU referendum. Journal of

Community and Applied Social Psychology, 28(2), 65-79.

Verkuyten, M., Martinovic, Borja., & Smeekes, A. (2015). The multicultural jigsaw

puzzle: Category indispensability and acceptance of immigrants’ cultural rights.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1480-1493.

Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice

reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(4), 455-472.

What does the Confederate flag symbolize? Seven in ten working-class Whites say

“Southern pride.” (14 August 2017). Retrieved from

https://www.prri.org/spotlight/White-working-class-americans-confederate-flag-

southern-pride-racism/

Wirtz, C., van der Pligt, J., & Doosje, B. (2017). Negative attitudes toward Muslims in

The Netherlands: The role of symbolic threat, stereotypes, and moral emotions.

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22(1), 75-83.

Wolf, J. M. (2019). The predictive power of empathy on White individuals’ attitudes

towards White privilege. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The

Sciences and Engineering, 80(2-B).

Wright, J. D., & Esses, E. M. (2017). Support for the Confederate battle flag in the

Southern United States: Racism or Southern pride? Journal of Social and

Political Psychology, 5(1), 224-243. 63

Zakrisson, I. (2005). Construction of a short version of the right-wing authoritarianism

(RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 863-872.

Appendix A: All Measures Used in Study 1

Political views

1. My political views on social issues (e.g., gay marriage, abortion, gun control) are:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very conservative Very liberal

2. My political views on economic issues (e.g. taxes, government spending) are:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very conservative Very liberal

3. My political views on foreign policy issues (e.g. the war on terror, North Korea) are:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very conservative Very liberal

Religiosity

1. What is the general importance of God in your life?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Not at all important extremely important

2. How important is God to you on a daily basis?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Not at all important extremely important

3. How confident are you that God exists?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Not at all confident Extremely confident

4. To what extent do you feel that you have a personal relationship with God?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Not at all Extremely

5. Compared to the average OU student, how would you rate the strength of your faith in God?

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Much weaker Much stronger

MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status

Right-wing Authoritarianism

Please indicate your feelings toward the following statements (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree). 1. Our country needs a powerful leader in order to destroy radical and immoral currents prevailing in our society today.

2. Our country needs free thinkers who will have the courage to stand up against traditional ways, even if this upsets many people. (R)

3. The “old-fashioned ways” and “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.

4. Our society would be better off if we showed tolerance and understanding for untraditional values and opinions. (R)

5. God’s laws about abortion, pornography, and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late; violations must be punished.

6. The society needs to show openness toward people thinking differently, rather than a strong leader. (R)

7. It would be best if newspapers were censored so that people would not be able to get hold of destructive and disgusting material.

8. Many good people challenge the state, criticize the church, and ignore “the normal way of living.” (R)

9. Our forefathers ought to be honored more for the way they have built our societies; at the same time we out to put an end to those forces destroying it.

10. People ought to put less attention to the Bible and religion. Instead, they ought to develop their own moral standards. (R) 68

11. There are many radical, immoral people trying to ruin things; society ought to stop them.

12. It is better to accept bad literature than to censor it. (R)

13. Facts show that we have to be harder against crime and sexual immorality, in order to uphold law and order.

14. The situation in society today would be improved if troublemakers were treated with reason and humanity. (R)

15. If society so wants, it is the duty of every true citizen to help eliminate the evil that poisons our country from within.

Social Dominance Orientation

Show how much you favor or oppose each idea below by selecting a number from 1 to 7 on the scale below. You can work quickly; your first feeling is generally best.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Strongly Somewhat Slightly Neutral Slightly Somewhat

Strongly

Oppose Oppose Oppose Favor Favor

Favor 1. Some groups of people must be kept in their place.

2. It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.

3. An ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be on the bottom.

4. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.

5. Groups at the bottom are just as deserving as groups at the top. (R)

6. No one group should dominate in society. (R)

7. Groups at the bottom should not have to stay in their place. (R)

8. Group dominance is a poor principle. (R)

9. We should not push for group equality.

10. We shouldn’t try to guarantee that every group has the same quality of life.

11. It is unjust to try to make groups equal.

12. Group equality should not be our primary goal. (R) 70

13. We should work to give all groups an equal chance to succeed. (R)

14. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups. (R)

15. No matter how much effort it takes, we ought to strive to ensure that all groups have the same chance in life. (R)

16. Group equality should be our ideal.(R)

Moral Foundations Questionnaire

When you decide whether something is right or wrong, to what extent are the following considerations relevant to your thinking? Please rate each statement using this scale:

0 = not at all relevant (This consideration has nothing to do with my judgments of right and wrong); 1 = not very relevant; 2 = slightly relevant; 3 = somewhat relevant; 4 = very relevant; 5 = extremely relevant (This is one of the most important factors when I judge right and wrong).

1. Whether or not someone suffered emotionally

2. Whether or not some people were treated differently than others

3. Whether or not someone’s action showed love for his or her country

4. Whether or not someone showed a lack of respect for authority

5. Whether or not someone violated standards of purity and decency

6. Whether or not someone was good at math

7. Whether or not someone cared for someone weak or vulnerable

8. Whether or not someone acted unfairly

9. Whether or not someone did something to betray his or her group

10. Whether or not someone conformed to the traditions of society

11. Whether or not someone did something disgusting

12. Whether or not someone was cruel

13. Whether or not someone was denied his or her rights

14. Whether or not someone showed a lack of loyalty

15. Whether or not an action caused chaos or disorder 72

16. Whether or not someone acted in a way that God would approve of

Part 2. Please read the following sentences and indicate your agreement or disagreement:

[0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Strongly

disagree disagree disagree agree agree agree

17. Compassion for those who are suffering is the most crucial virtue.

18. When the government makes laws, the number one principle should be ensuring that everyone is treated fairly.

19. I am proud of my country’s history.

20. Respect for authority is something all children need to learn.

21. People should not do things that are disgusting, even if no one is harmed.

22. It is better to do good than to do bad.

23. One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal.

24. Justice is the most important requirement for a society.

25. People should be loyal to their family members, even when they have done something wrong.

26. Men and women each have different roles to play in society.

27. I would call some acts wrong on the grounds that they are unnatural.

28. It can never be right to kill a human being.

29. I think it’s morally wrong that rich children inherit a lot of money while poor children inherit nothing. 73

31. It is more important to be a team player than to express oneself.

32. If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer’s orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty.

33. Chastity is an important and valuable virtue.

Social Desirability Scale

True/False

1. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged.

2. I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my own way.

3. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability.

4. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right.

5. No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener.

6. There have been some occasions when I took advantage or someone.

7. I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.

8. I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and forget.

9. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable.

10. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own.

11. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others.

12. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me.

13. I have never said something that has deliberately hurt someone’s feelings.

White Guilt/White Privilege

White Guilt Scale; 1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree

1. Although I feel my behavior is typically nondiscriminatory toward Blacks, I still feel guilt due to my association with the White race.

2. I feel guilty about the past and present social inequality of Black Americans (i.e., slavery, poverty).

3. I do not feel guilty about social inequality between White and Black Americans. (R)

4. When I learn about racism, I feel guilt due to my association with the White race.

5. I feel guilty about the benefits and privileges that I receive as a White American.

White Privilege Scale; 1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree

1. White people have certain advantages that minorities do not have in this society.

2. My status as a White person grants me unearned privileges in today’s society.

3. I feel that White skin in the United States opens many doors for Whites during their everyday lives.

4. I do not feel that White people have any benefits or privileges due to their race. (R)

5. My skin color is an asset to me in my everyday life.

Ingroup Attachment

(Attachment vs. Glorification; 1= strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree)

1. I love America. (A)

2. Other nations can learn a lot from us. (G)

3. Being an American is an important part of my identity. (A)

4. In today’s world, the only way to know what to do is to rely on the leaders of our nation. (G)

5. It is important to me to contribute to our nation. (A)

6. The United States military is the best in the world.(G)

7. It is important to me to view myself as an American. (A)

8. One of the most important things we have to teach children is to respect the leaders of our nation. (G)

9. I am strongly committed to my nation. (A)

10. Relative to other nations, we are a very moral nation. (G)

11. It is important to me that everyone will see me as an American. (A)

12. It is disloyal for Americans to criticize America. (G)

13. It is important for me to serve my country. (A)

14. American is better than other nations in all respects. (G)

15. When I talk about Americans I usually say “we” rather than “they.” (A)

16. There is generally a good reason for every rule and regulation made by our national authorities. (G)

Feeling Thermometer

1. On a scale of 0 (no warmth at all) to 100 (extreme warmth) how would you describe your feelings toward Blacks?

2. On a scale of 0 (no warmth at all) to 100 (extreme warmth) how would you describe your feelings toward Asians?

3. On a scale of 0 (no warmth at all) to 100 (extreme warmth) how would you describe your feelings toward Hispanics?

4. On a scale of 0 (no warmth at all) to 100 (extreme warmth) how would you describe your feelings toward Native Americans?

Nostalgia Measures

1= very rarely; 6= very often

1. How often do you experiences nostalgia when you think about the United States of the past?

2. How often do you long for the good old days of the country?

3. How often do you long for the United States of the past?

4. How often do you feel nostalgic when you hear American songs from the past?

Threat Perceptions 1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree 1. Removing statues of Confederate soldiers is a threat to free speech.

2. The removal of Confederate statues is detrimental to American values.

3. People who want to remove Confederate statues are disrespecting American history.

4. The removal of Confederate statues gives too much power to a vocal minority.

5. The mainstream media pays too much attention to those who want to remove

Confederate statues.

6. There is a wide gap between those who want to remove Confederate statues and those

who do not.

7. Displaying Confederate statues in public places has educational value.

8. Those who want to remove Confederate statues do not value the traditions of their

group as much as those who do not.

9. Those who want to remove Confederate statues regard themselves as morally superior

to those who do not.

10. Society is more lenient with people who want to remove Confederate statues than

with those who do not.

11. Displaying Confederate statues in public places helps us not to repeat past

transgressions.

12. Those who want to remove Confederate statues have too much political power in this

country.

13. The presence of Confederate statues is detrimental to American values. 80

14. Confederate statues are a symbol of the continued oppression of minorities in

America.

15. Those who want to preserve Confederate statues have been given too much media

attention.

16. Those who support the presence of Confederate statues are ignoring America’s past

transgressions.

17. People who want to preserve Confederate statues make America a less tolerant place.

18. Society is more lenient with people who want to preserve Confederate statues than

with those who do not.

19. Those who want to preserve Confederate statues have too much political power in

this country.

20. The presence of Confederate statues in public places is threatening to minority

groups.

Attitudes toward Confederate symbols

1=strongly disagree; 4=neutral, 7=strongly agree; I am not familiar with this issue

1. I think replacing Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill is a good idea.

2. I think statues honoring Confederate generals and soldiers should be removed from public places.

3. Viewing a statue of Robert E. Lee would be offensive to me.

4. Viewing a statue of Thomas Jefferson would be offensive to me.

5. The Confederate flag should not be flown in public places.

6. Statues of Christopher Columbus should not be displayed in public places in the US.

Appendix B: New Measures in Study 2

Opposition to PC Norms Scale

(1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

1. Political correctness is a problem in America today.

2. Pressures to be politically correct serves an important purpose. (R)

3. Political correctness norms interfere with Americans’ right to free speech.

4. Political correctness norms help to protect people from all walks of life. (R)

5. American society places too much emphasis on political correctness.

6. Political correctness prevents people from speaking the truth.

7. America needs to be freed from political correctness.

Ingroup Reputation Protection

(1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

1. The Confederate flag reminds everyone of the atrocities that White people committed against Black people in the past.

2. We should not display statues honoring Confederate soldiers because they remind us of how poorly Whites have treated Blacks in America.

3. Displays of the Confederate flag are embarrassing for White people.

4. Statues honoring Confederate soldiers remind everyone of the bad behavior of White people in the past.

5. When looking at a Confederate monument, memories of Whites’ enslavement of

Blacks are immediately brought to mind.

Outgroup Empathy

(1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

1. I get upset when I think about how Black Americans must feel when they face discrimination.

2. We should not display the Confederate flag because of how it must make Black people feel.

3. It probably doesn’t bother most Black people to see Confederate flags or statues of

Confederate statues. (R)

4. Black people who are offended by statues honoring Confederate soldiers just need to get over it. (R)

5. I can understand why Black Americans might be angered by seeing displays of the

Confederate flag.

White Identity Centrality

(1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

1. Overall, being White has very little to do with how I feel about myself. (R)

2. In general, being White is an important part of my self-image.

3. My destiny is tied to the destiny of other White people.

4. Being White is unimportant to my sense of what kind of person I am. (R)

5. I have a strong sense of belonging to White people.

6. I have a strong attachment to other White people.

7. Being White is an important reflection of who I am.

8. Being White is not a major factor in my social relationships. (R)

Symbolic and Realistic Threat

(1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)

1. Blacks hold too many positions of power and responsibility in this country.

2. Blacks dominate American politics more than they should.

3. When Blacks are in positions of authority, they discriminate against Whites when making hiring decisions.

4. Too much money is spent on educational programs that benefit Blacks.

5. Blacks have more economic power than they deserve in this country.

6. Blacks receive too much of the money spent on healthcare and childcare.

7. Too much money per student is spent on education for Blacks.

8. The tax system favors Blacks.

9. Many companies hire less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites.

10. Blacks have more political power than they deserve in this country.

11. Public service agencies favor Blacks over Whites.

12. The legal system is more lenient on Blacks than on Whites.

13. Whites and Blacks have very different values.

14. Blacks have no right to think they have better values than Whites.

15. Blacks want their rights to be put ahead of the rights of Whites.

16. Blacks don't understand the way Whites view the world.

17. Blacks do not value the rights granted by the Constitution (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) as much as Whites do.

18. Blacks and Whites have different family values. 87

19. Blacks don't value the traditions of their group as much as Whites do.

20. Blacks regard themselves as morally superior to Whites.

21. The values of Blacks regarding work are different from those of Whites.

22. Most Blacks will never understand what Whites are like.

23. Blacks should not try to impose their values on Whites.

24. Whites do not get as much respect from Blacks as they deserve.

Appendix C: New Measures in Study 3

Shortened Symbolic Threat Scale

Please indicate your agreement with the following items using the scale below (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

1. Blacks want their rights to be put ahead of the rights of Whites.

2. Blacks do not value the rights granted by the Constitution (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) as much as Whites do.

3. Blacks and Whites have different family values.

4. The values of Blacks regarding work are different from those of Whites.

5. Most Blacks will ever understand what Whites are like.

6. Whites do not get as much respect from Blacks as they deserve.

Shortened Realistic Threat Scale

Please indicate your agreement with the following items using the scale below (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

1. Blacks hold too many positions of power in this country.

2. Black dominate American politics more than they should.

3. Blacks have more economic power than they deserve in this country.

4. Blacks have more political power than they deserve in this country.

5. Many companies hire less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites.

6. Public services agencies favor Blacks over Whites.

Appendix D: New Measures in Study 4

Symbolic Threat Scale (Confederate Statues)

Please indicate your agreement with the following items using the scale below (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

1. Opponents of Confederate statues want their rights to be put ahead of the rights of people who want the statues to remain standing. 2. Opponents of Confederate statues do not value the rights granted by the Constitution (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) as much as people who want the preserve the statues do. 3. Most people who want to preserve Confederate statues will never understand what opponents of the statues are like. 4. Opponents of Confederate statues do not get as much respect as they deserve from people who want to preserve the statues. 5. Opponents of Confederate statues regard themselves as morally superior to people who want to preserve the statues.

Realistic Threat Scale (Confederate Statues)

Please indicate your agreement with the following items using the scale below (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

1. Opponents of Confederate statues hold too many positions of power in this country. 2. Opponents of Confederate statues dominate American politics more than they should. 3. People who want Confederate statues to remain standing have more political power than they deserve in this country. 4. People who want to preserve Confederate statues want their rights to be put ahead of opponents of the statues. 5. People who want Confederate statues to remain standing have more economic power than they deserve in this country. 6. When opponents of Confederate statues are in positions of authority, they discriminate against people who want to preserve the statues. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !