Is all prejudice created equal? The role of modern and aversive racism in mock juror decisions.

The current study examined whether aversive and modern racists would convict Black defendants differently based on theoretical differences: aversive racists are egalitarian and discriminate when not reminded of their values, whereas modern racists do not espouse egalitarian values and discriminate when a non-racial reason exists to justify their behavior. Participants read a criminal trial where defendant race (Black vs. White), race salience (present vs. absent), and justification (weak vs. strong evidence) were manipulated. Results showed that aversive and modern racists convicted the Black defendant at similar rates, but aversive racists were more likely to convict the White than the Black defendant. Aversive racists were also more egalitarian and less socially conservative. The finding that aversive racists convict Black and White defendants differently, but modern racists did not, suggests the importance of distinguishing aversive and modern racists to obtain a more complete picture of racial discrimination in juror decision making.

Geographic distribution of prejudice toward African Americans: Applying the two-dimensional model.

Using the two-dimensional model of prejudice as a theoretical framework, we examined the geographic distribution of prejudice toward African Americans in the United States (N = 10,522). We found the East South Central, West South Central, and South Atlantic regions were associated with modern racism, principled conservatism characterized the Mountain region, aversive racism was prevalent in the East North Central region, and finally, low in prejudice was found in the Pacific, West North Central, Mid Atlantic, and New England regions. Additional analyses on political conservatism, social conservatism, and egalitarianism generally supported the distinctions between prejudice types made by the two-dimensional model. We believe mapping regional prejudice may have implications for testing theoretical differences between distinct types of prejudice as well as for implementing prejudice reduction strategies.

Lexical derivation of the PINT taxonomy of goals: Prominence, inclusiveness, negativity prevention, and tradition.

What do people want? Few questions are more fundamental to psychological science than this. Yet, existing taxonomies disagree on both the number and content of goals. Thus, we adopted a lexical approach and investigated the structure of goal-relevant words from the natural English lexicon. Through an intensive rating process, 1,060 goal-relevant English words were first located. In Studies 1-2, two relatively large and diverse samples (total n = 1,026) rated their commitment to approaching or avoiding these goals. Principal component analyses yielded 4 replicable components: Prominence, Inclusiveness, Negativity Prevention, and Tradition (the PINT Taxonomy). Studies 3-7 (total n = 1,396) supported the 4-factor structure of an abbreviated scale and found systematic differences in their relationships with past goal-content measures, the Big 5 traits, affect, and need satisfaction. This investigation provides a data-driven taxonomy of higher-order goal-content and opens up a wide variety of fascinating lines for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Taking the fight out of people: Exploring how defeat modulates the automatic aggressive response to facial anger.

Past studies indicate that angry facial expressions automatically activate an aggressive response, seeming to support the view that humans possess an inborn, automatic tendencies to aggress. However, the current authors drew on influential models from evolutionary game theory to suggest that experiences of defeat may modulate this tendency. To examine this, four experiments were conducted to explore how defeat may modulate this aggressive response. In each study, participants executed simulated fight or flight responses based a computerized opponent's facial expression. Across studies, participants were typically faster to initiate fight (than flight) responses against an angry opponent. Simply losing simulated fights (Experiment 1) or experiencing aversive, white noise following simulated losses (Experiment 2) did not eliminate this tendency. However, when aversive noise was specifically experienced after losing to an angry opponent, the automatic aggressive response was eliminated (Experiment 3). This result was directly replicated (Experiment 4). Thus, these studies isolate the cues which automatize submissive behavior and show that fighting experience can modulate even our automatic aggressive responses to others' anger displays.