Eliciting cognitive consistency increases acceptance of implicit bias.

Resistance to knowledge about implicit bias jeopardizes the ability to learn, understand, and act to outsmart bias. Across three experiments and five independent samples (N > 3,500), conditions that increase cognitive consistency were created alongside control conditions. In Experiment 1, using a race (Black-White) Implicit Association Test (IAT), cognitive consistency was enhanced when participants evaluated the validity and utility of the test before, rather than after, receiving the test result, leading to greater acceptance of bias. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants either evaluated their performance on a Black-White IAT alone or evaluated their performance on a morally innocuous Insect-Flower IAT prior to a Black-White IAT. Again, resistance to evidence of implicit racial bias was reduced in the latter condition, where the imperative for cognitive consistency was heightened. In all three experiments, creating ordinary conditions to heighten cognitive consistency was associated with increased bias awareness and acceptance and, additionally, with support for actions to minimize its consequence-outcomes critical to achieving effective bias education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Less biased yet more defensive: The impact of control processes.

Educational and training programs designed to reduce racial bias often focus on increasing people's awareness of psychological sources of their biases. However, when people learn about their biases, they often respond defensively, which can undermine the effectiveness of antibias interventions and the success of prejudice regulation. Using process (Quad) modeling, we provide one of the first investigations of the relationships between (a) controlled and automatic cognitive processes that underpin performance on the Implicit Association Test and (b) defensive reactions to unflattering implicit racial bias feedback. In two correlational samples (one preregistered; N = 8,000) and one experiment in which the provision of bias feedback was manipulated (N = 547), we find racially biased associations and some control over these associations among White people. Nonetheless, more defensiveness to bias feedback consistently predicted weaker ability to control biased associations. We also find correlational evidence that lower levels of biased associations predict more defensiveness, but did not replicate this observation in the experimental study. These results are critical for theories of implicit attitudes, models of prejudice regulation, and strategies for antibias interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Internal conflict and prejudice-regulation: Emotional ambivalence buffers against defensive responding to implicit bias feedback.

Becoming aware of bias is essential for prejudice-regulation. However, attempts to make people aware of bias through feedback often elicits defensive reactions that undermine mitigation efforts. In the present article, we introduce state emotional ambivalence-the simultaneous experience of positive and negative emotions "in the present moment"-as a buffer against defensive responding to implicit bias feedback. Two studies (N = 507) demonstrate that implicit bias feedback (vs. no feedback) increases defensiveness (rating the test as less valid, credible, and objective). However, high (vs. low) state emotional ambivalence, which was independent of bias feedback, attenuates this relationship between bias feedback and defensiveness, accounting for a larger share of the variance than negative emotions alone. In turn, this reduced defensiveness among individuals high (vs. low) in emotional ambivalence was associated with increased awareness of bias in the self and others. Results suggest that state emotional ambivalence is associated with increased bias awareness by creating a mindset in which individuals are less defensive to potentially threatening information about their own implicit racial bias. These results have important implications for research on stereotyping and prejudice, emotional ambivalence and psychological conflict, and defensiveness.

Vax attacks: How conspiracy theory belief undermines vaccine support.

As the world continues to respond to the spread of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease commonly known as COVID-19), it has become clear that one of the most effective strategies for curbing the pandemic is the COVID-19 vaccine. However, a major challenge that health organizations face when advocating for the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine is the spread of related misinformation and conspiracy theories. This study examines factors that influence vaccine hesitancy using two online survey samples, one convenience and one nationally representative, collected in the early summer of 2020 during the height of the second peak of coronavirus cases in the United States. Given extant literature on vaccine hesitancy and conspiracy belief, we expect that three factors-conspiracy theory belief, political identity, and anti-intellectualism-have served to reduce COVID-19 vaccination likelihood. Accordingly, across our two independent samples we find that anti-intellectualism, conspiratorial predispositions, and COVID-19 conspiracy theory belief are the strongest and most consistent predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Notably, we also find that partisanship and political ideology are inconsistently significant predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy once conspiracy theory beliefs, anti-intellectualism, and control variables are accounted for in the models. When political tendencies are significant, they demonstrate a relatively small substantive association with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We discuss implications for ongoing mass vaccination efforts, continued widespread vaccine hesitancy, and related political attitudes.

Exposure and Aversion to Human Transmissible Diseases Predict Conservative Ideological and Partisan Preferences.

The objective prevalence of and subjective vulnerability to infectious diseases are associated with greater ingroup preference, conformity, and traditionalism. However, evidence directly testing the link between infectious diseases and political ideology and partisanship is lacking. Across four studies, including a large sample representative of the U.S. population (N > 12,000), we demonstrate that higher environmental levels of human transmissible diseases and avoidance of germs from human carriers predict conservative ideological and partisan preferences. During the COVID-19 pandemic (N = 848), we replicated this germ aversion finding and determined that these conservative preferences were primarily driven by avoidance of germs from outgroups (foreigners) rather than ingroups (locals). Moreover, socially conservative individuals expressed lower concerns of being susceptible to contracting infectious diseases during the pandemic and worried less about COVID-19. These effects were robust to individual-level and state-level controls. We discuss these findings in light of theory on parasite stress and the behavioral immune system and with regard to the political implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Personality in a pandemic: Social norms moderate associations between personality and social distancing behaviors.

To limit the transmission of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is important to understand the sources of social behavior for members of the general public. However, there is limited research on how basic psychological dispositions interact with social contexts to shape behaviors that help mitigate contagion risk, such as social distancing. Using a sample of 89,305 individuals from 39 countries, we show that Big Five personality traits and the social context jointly shape citizens' social distancing during the pandemic. Specifically, we observed that the association between personality traits and social distancing behaviors were attenuated as the perceived societal consensus for social distancing increased. This held even after controlling for objective features of the environment such as the level of government restrictions in place, demonstrating the importance of subjective perceptions of local norms.

Exposure to capital voir dire may not increase convictions despite increasing pretrial presumption of guilt.

During capital voir dire, prospective jurors are questioned about their views on capital punishment to determine their ability and willingness to impose the penalty as required by law. Two experiments replicated and extended Haney's (1984a) research on the effects of exposure to capital voir dire, which has been cited to support the proposition that jurors who are exposed to a capital voir dire are more prone to convict. In the first study, watching a capital voir dire increased participants' pretrial estimates of the likelihood of the defendant's guilt and conviction, replicating earlier findings. However, these pretrial effects did not survive the presentation of trial evidence, which had not been tested previously. Participants exposed to death qualification during capital voir dire were significantly less likely to convict than were those who were not exposed to death qualification. In a second study, exposure to capital voir dire influenced the type and amount of evidence that jurors reported that they would require for conviction, such that exposure to death qualification created an expectation for greater evidence of guilt than did exposure to a standard voir dire. To the extent that exposure to capital voir dire increases jurors' expectations for evidence of guilt, death qualified jurors may be more likely to acquit if their expectations are not met, despite increased pretrial bias against the defendant. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Do we overemphasize the role of culture in the behavior of racial/ethnic minorities? Evidence of a cultural (mis)attribution bias in American psychology.

Although culture influences all human beings, there is an assumption in American psychology that culture matters more for members of certain groups. This article identifies and provides evidence of the cultural (mis)attribution bias: a tendency to overemphasize the role of culture in the behavior of racial/ethnic minorities, and to underemphasize it in the behavior of Whites. Two studies investigated the presence of this bias with an examination of a decade of peer reviewed research conducted in the United States (N = 434 articles), and an experiment and a survey with psychology professors in the United States (N = 361 psychologists). Archival analyses revealed differences in the composition of samples used in studies examining cultural or noncultural psychological phenomena. We also find evidence to suggest that psychologists in the United States favor cultural explanations over psychological explanations when considering the behavior and cognition of racial/ethnic minorities, whereas the opposite pattern emerged in reference to Whites. The scientific ramifications of this phenomenon, as well as alternatives to overcome it, are discussed in detail. (PsycINFO Database Record