The (In)egalitarian Self: On the Motivated Rejection of Implicit Racial Bias A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Joseph A. Vitriol IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Eugene Borgida, Ph.D., Advisor Mark Snyder, Ph.D., Advisor October 2016 ! ! © Joseph A. Vitriol, 2016 ! ! Acknowledgements I am grateful for the invaluable contributions and ideas from the many individuals who have supported me throughout the process of my graduate training and doctoral dissertation. Foremost among them are my advisors, Eugene Borgida and Mark Snyder, whose sound advise, thoughtful and challenging questions, and high expectations and standards for excellence have served as a benchmark to which I’ve aspired throughout my graduate school career. They, along with the other members of my committee, Christopher Federico and Howard Lavine, deserve special recognition for their tremendous support, patience, and superb insight and feedback at every step of this endeavor. Each have served as inspiring mentors, advisors, and teachers to many emerging psychologists, and I too owe a sincere debt of gratitude for having benefited from their guidance. I would also like to thank the many faculty members in the Psychology and Political Science Departments at the University of Minnesota for sharing with me their unique perspectives and invaluable resources that continue to shape my thinking. Thank you for challenging me to grow into a better scientist and a better person. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues, friends, and family for their ongoing support, love, and much needed humor. This dissertation would not be possible without the tireless work of my dedicated team of research assistants and many other young scholars that I’ve been privileged to work with over the years. I am humbled by their generosity and proud of their commitment to the pursuit of scientific knowledge on behalf of the public good. Funding from the Center for the Study of Political Psychology and the Department of Psychology Research Award graciously supported my dissertation work. ! i! The mistakes that remain in this document are my own. ! ii! Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to all of my family, loved ones, and friends, but especially to my parents, Carolyn and Jonathan Vitriol. I am hopeful that this dissertation is the first step of many in repaying the love, support, and patience you have always shown me throughout my life. Thank you for teaching me the courage to pursue my passions and my dreams. ! iii! Abstract White Americans widely endorse egalitarian values and strongly oppose hostile forms of racial prejudice, yet significant racial disparities persist in many important life domains. Unconscious, implicit forms of bias at the individual-level have been offered as one explanation for aggregate racial disparities. Research has identified strategies to increase prejudice-regulation and reduce implicit bias in applied contexts, but has neglected to consider various psychological obstacles to the successful implementation of these interventions. Across three studies in which I experimentally manipulated exposure to scientific information and personalized feedback about implicit bias, I examined one such obstacle: that evidence of implicit racial bias threatens individuals’ egalitarian self- concepts, and activates motivated reasoning processes that bolster the denial of implicit bias feedback and its influence on behavior. I also test several strategies to decrease defensive responding and attenuate motivated reasoning in this context. Results indicate that exposing White Americans to credible information on the science of implicit bias can increase awareness, but also risks backfire effects in the form of negative attitudes towards social science and increased racial stereotyping. Additionally, personalized implicit bias feedback reliably induced negative attitudes towards an instrument designed to measure implicit bias (i.e., IAT) and negative self-reported affect, but had no reliable influence on awareness. However, negative affect mediated the relationship between feedback and self-perceived bias, suggesting that personalized feedback can have indirect effects on awareness. Importantly, I also obtain robust evidence for the success of a simple pre-feedback intervention informing participants that implicit bias is common and fundamental to human cognition, but nonetheless malleable and subject to control. This collective bias intervention, when paired with personalized feedback, reliably increased self-perceived bias, belief in prejudice and discrimination, and more acceptance of and favorable attitudes towards the IAT. Across all studies, I find that the motivated rejection of implicit bias is consequential for prejudice-regulation, stereotyping, and public policy attitudes, and mediates the relationship between a broad range of individual differences (i.e., sociopolitical orientations, explicit racial attitudes, and egalitarian motivations) and these outcomes. Finally, defensive responding to implicit bias evidence and feedback was cognitively depleting, as indexed by the Stroop test, although impaired performance on this task was reduced among participants in the pre-feedback intervention. I conclude with a discussion of the implications of this evidence for anti-bias interventions, models of prejudice-regulation, impression management strategies in the context of intergroup relations, and the study of racial attitudes and prejudice. I also consider the application of my results to political and legal contexts, and identify future directions for additional research. ! iv! Table of Contents ` Page i Acknowledgements iii Dedication iv Abstract v Table of Contents ix List of Tables x List of Figures 1 Introduction 7 Thesis Overview 11 Evidence for Racial Discrimination and Inequality 13 Old Racism in a New World 19 Implicit Racial Bias and Explicit Egalitarianism 21 Unprejudiced Self-Image Maintenance 25 Motivation to Control and Regulate Prejudiced Responding 31 Current Research: Overview of Theory, Hypotheses, Methods 31 Sociopolitical Orientations and Perceptions of Racial Discrimination 32 Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Egalitarianism and Prejudice-Related Discrepancies 37 Downstream Consequences of the Motivated Rejection of Implicit Bias 38 Interventions to Attenuate Motivated Rejection of Implicit Bias 40 Overview of Study 1, 2, and 3 41 General Overview of Analysis Across Studies 42 Pilot 1a: General Belief in the Existence of Implicit Racial Bias ! v! 42 Goals and Hypotheses 43 Method 48 Results 49 Discussion 50 Pilot 1b: General Belief in the Existence of Implicit Racial Bias 50 Goals and Hypotheses 51 Method 52 Results 54 Discussion 56 Study 1: General Belief in the Existence of Implicit Racial Bias 56 Goals and Hypotheses 58 Method 64 Results 71 Discussion 78 Pilot 2: Allegations of Implicit Bias 78 Goals and Hypotheses 79 Method 87 Results 94 Discussion 95 Study 2: Allegations of Implicit Bias 95 Goals and Hypotheses 97 Method ! vi! 99 Results 114 Discussion 119 Pilot 3: Interventions to Reduce Motivated Rejection of Implicit Bias Feedback 119 Goals and Hypotheses 119 Method 123 Results 125 Discussion 126 Study 3a: Interventions to Reduce Motivated Rejection of Implicit Bias Feedback 126 Goals and Hypotheses 127 Method 128 Results 133 Discussion 135 Study 3b: Interventions to Reduce Motivated Rejection of Implicit Bias Feedback 135 Goals and Hypotheses 136 Method 136 Results 143 Discussion 147 General Discussion How do White Americans respond to information and feedback about 148 implicit racial bias? Does the motivated rejection of implicit racial bias challenge existing 153 models of prejudice-regulation? 163 Direct Implications for Political and Legal Contexts ! vii! 166 Future Directions 170 Conclusion 171 References 196 Tables 206 Figures 243 Appendix 243 List of Hypotheses 244 Measures Index 247 Manipulation Checks 247 Pre-Manipulation Measures 254 Post-Manipulation Measures 268 Pilot/ Study 1 Post-Manipulation Questions 269 Study 3 Interventions 274 Open-Ended Coding Scheme for Pilot 2 ! viii! List of Tables Page Table 1.1. Means, SD, and alpha for measures used in Pilot 1b 195 Table 1.2. Correlations between all continuous variables used in Study 1 196 Table 2.1. Means, SD, and alpha for measures used in Pilot 2 197 Table 2.2. Correlations between all continuous variables used in Pilot 2 198 Table 2.3. Inter-rater agreement for open-ended content coding of self-reported belief in the use of deception, prior to consensus, for Pilot 2 199 Table 2.4. Correlations between all continuous variables used in Study 2 200 Table 3.1. Means, SD, and alpha for measures used in Pilot 3 201 Table 3.2. Correlations between all continuous variables used in Pilot 3 202 Table 3.3. Means and SD for measures used in Study 3a 203 Table 3.4. Means and SD for measures used in Study 3b 204 ! ix! List of Figures Page Figure 1.1. Main effect of experimental condition on motivated reasoning for Pilot 1a 205 Figure 1.2. Main effect of experimental condition on motivated reasoning for Pilot 1b 206 Figure 1.3. Coefficients plot for effect of T1 independent variables on motivated reasoning in Study 1 207 Figure 1.4. Coefficients plot for effect of T1 independent variables on prejudice-regulation in Study 1 208 Figure 1.5. Coefficients plot for effect of T1 independent variables on stereotyping and public policy attitudes in Study 1 209 Figure 1.6. Experimental condition