The present research investigated how levels of anti-Black prejudice may influence differential perceived free-speech protections (FSPs) for hurtful acts targeting Black or White people. Because hate crime designation (HCD) requires evidence of a prejudice-motivated intention to harm individuals, we investigated how anti-Black prejudice and race of the target interact to influence HCD for the act and how greater perceived FSPs may predict less willingness to label the act a hate crime. Across two studies, anti-Black bias was associated with more perceived FSPs for Black-targeted acts, which predicted less HCD. Low anti-Black prejudice participants viewed Black- versus White-targeted acts as less protected by free-speech rights and more likely to be a hate crime. In Study 1 (but not Study 2), high anti-Black prejudice participants displayed the opposite pattern. This work holds implications for theories of motivated justification and psychological understanding of public discourse regarding free speech.
AbersonC. L.EttlinT. E. (2004). The aversive racism paradigm and responses favoring African Americans: Meta-analytic evidence of two types of favoritism. Social Justice Research, 17, 25–46. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1023/B:SORE.0000018091.48241.7a
2.
AikenL. S.WestS. G.RenoR. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London, England: Sage.
BrandtM. J.ReynaC.ChambersJ. R.CrawfordJ. T.WetherellG. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 27–34. Retrieved fromhttp://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413510932
5.
ClaytonS.OpotowS. (2003). Justice and identity: Changing perspectives on what is fair. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 298–310. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_03
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414
8.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA. (2005). The justification-suppression model of prejudice: An approach to the history of prejudice research. In CrandallC. S.SchallerM. (Eds.), Social psychology of prejudice: Historical and contemporary issues (pp. 240–241). Lawrence, KS: Lewinian Press.
9.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.PearsonA. R. (2017). Aversive racism and contemporary bias. In BarlowF. K.SibleyC. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 267–294). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
10.
DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 3–28). London, England: Sage.
11.
DuarteJ. L.CrawfordJ. T.SternC.HaidtJ.JussimL.TetlockP. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, e130, 1–58. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430
12.
EffronD. A.ConwayP. (2015). When virtue leads to villainy: Advances in research on moral self-licensing. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 32–35. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.COPSYC.2015.03.017
13.
EffronD. A.MillerD. T.MoninB. (2012). Inventing racist roads not taken: The licensing effect of immoral counterfactual behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 916–932. doi:10.1037/a0030008
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
15.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
FiglioD. (2005). Names, expectations and the Black-White test score gap(NBER Working Paper No. 11195). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
18.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
19.
Hate Crimes Act, 18 U.S. Code § 249 (2009).
20.
HenryP. J. (2008). College sophomores in the laboratory redux: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of the nature of prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 19, 49–71. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10478400802049936
KatzI.HassR. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.893
24.
KimR. S. (2011). Standardized regression coefficients as indices of effect sizes in meta-analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved fromFlorida State University Digital Libraryathttp://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu%3A181466
25.
LevayK. E.FreeseJ.DruckmanJ. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433
MannesS.FosterE. (2016). The good and the bad: How pre-trial publicity and race affect perceptions of defendants. North American Journal of Psychology, 18, 441–451.
28.
McClellandG. H.JuddC. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376
MurrellA. J.Dietz-UhlerB. L.DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.DroutC. (1994). Aversive racism and resistance to affirmative action: Perceptions of justice are not necessarily color blind. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 71–86.
31.
NelsonJ. C.AdamsG.SalterP. S. (2013). The Marley hypothesis: Denial of racism reflects ignorance of history. Psychological Science, 24, 213–218. doi:10.1177/0956797612451466
32.
NieminenP.LehtiniemiH.VähäkangasK.HuuskoA.RautioA. (2013). Standardized regression coefficient as an effect size index in summarizing findings in epidemiological studies. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health, 10, 1–15. doi:10.2427/8854
33.
PinteritsE. J.PoteatV. P.SpaniermanL. B. (2009). The White Privilege Attitudes Scale: Development and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 417. doi:10.1037/a0016274
34.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
35.
SearsD. O.HenryP. J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 259–275. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.259
36.
ShivelyM. (2005). Study of literature and legislation on hate crime in America, a report submitted to the National Institute of Justice (NCJ Publication No. 210300). Washington, DC: ABT Associates.
37.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
38.
SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P.FongG. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845
WhiteM. H.CrandallC. S. (2017). Freedom of racist speech: Ego and expressive threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 413–429. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000095
YzerbytV. Y.MullerD.JuddC. M. (2004). Adjusting researchers’ approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 424–431. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.10.001
46.
ZdaniukA.BobocelD. R. (2011). Independent self-construal and opposition to affirmative action: The role of microjustice and macrojustice preferences. Social Justice Research, 24, 341–364. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0143-6
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
