Upload
melissa-williams
View
654
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Running Head: RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 1
Exploring Implicit and Explicit Measures of Racism to Explain Perceptions of
Dangerousness
By
Melissa Williams
Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Uk
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 2
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 3
Abstract
Racism is still a major problem in society, the measure of such attitudes can be considerably
beneficial and help to highlight social biases and prevent ethnic inequalities. The present
study uses the IRAP and explicit measures to explore racism, in particular, perceptions of
dangerousness. The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is a relatively new
measure of implicit attitudes and cognition; it has been successfully utilized as an implicit
measure of racist attitudes. The study also used a number of race based questionnaires as
explicit measures of racism. The data from the IRAP and the explicit measures were
compared. Results of the IRAP indicated that participants perceived White people to be safe
and Asian people to be dangerous when both were presented with dangerous objects. Results
of the explicit measures indicated that participants held relatively racist views towards Asian
people, but believed the majority of White people in the UK did not hold racist views towards
Asian people. Participants also had a low amount of social experiences with Asian people and
largely negative experiences. The findings suggest that individuals who had more social
experiences with Asian people were less likely to display racist attitudes and less likely to
perceive the majority of White people in the UK to be racist towards Asian people.
Individuals that did consider the British public to be racist were biased towards perceiving
White people as safe. These findings are important as they highlight a same race bias in
perceptions of dangerousness and further research on the IRAP as a measure of implicit racial
attitudes.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 4
Exploring Implicit and Explicit Measures of Racism to Explain Perceptions of
Dangerousness
Racism can have long-term effects on individuals’ psychological and physiological
health, experiences of racism can range from one off incidents to continued abuse (Lowe,
Okubo & Reilly, 2012). Racism is a serious issue in modern society, research shows that
racism is a significant determinant of health and can result in ethnic inequalities (Pascoe &
Smart Richman, 2009). The effects of racism have been linked to depression, general distress,
generalized anxiety, hyper arousal and physical violence (Carter et al., 2013).
Research into the link between racism and violence has highlighted a violent race bias
towards individuals of a different race to oneself. There is consistent research to show that
individuals are more likely to shoot at armed Black people quicker and more frequently than
at armed White people, and are more likely to make the decision not to shoot an armed White
person more quickly and more frequently than an armed Black person (Correl et al., 2011).
There is also evidence to suggest that this is not simply a lab based effect, in 2001 a Black
male called Timothy Thomas had warrants for non-violent traffic incidents. Timothy was
found by a police officer one day, and ran into a dark alleyway. The police officer entered the
alley way and shot Timothy dead. The reason the officer gave for this is that he said he
believed Timothy had a gun. (Correl et al., 2011). Similarly to this, a study by Greenwald,
Oakes, Hunter and Hoffman (2002) found that individuals were more likely to shoot unarmed
Black people than unarmed White people. They concluded that the race of an individual can
affect one’s ability to discriminate between a mundane object and a weapon and can produce
a bias to respond as though a weapon is present when the subject is Black. These findings are
significant as they indicate that White people are more likely to perceive Black people as
violent, than individuals of their own race.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 5Similarly, a study was conducted on White participants who read a variety of
newspaper crime briefs that consisted of both violent and non-violent crime stories featuring
pictures of either Black or White individuals. Following this, participants were asked to
identify the suspects featured in the news articles, results found that misidentification of
Black individuals featuring in the violent crime stories was higher than for White individuals
(Oliver & Fonash, 2002). In relation to this, research suggests that White individuals report a
greater fear of crime amongst the presence of Black individuals compared to in the presence
of White individuals (Chiricos, Hogan & Gertz, 1997). Correl et al. (2011) suggest that
context also has an impact on behavior, and can determine whether an individual shoots
another person or not when danger is suggested. Correl et al. suggested that once danger is
activated by an initial cue, then further cues have little impact. Social Identity Theory
proposes the reason for this to be that individuals will discriminate against the out-group -
people who are in a different social group to oneself – in order to heighten one’s self-image.
The theory suggests that people will discriminate against races different to their own, seeing
other racial groups as ‘them’ and their own race as ‘us’. The hypothesis of the theory is that
individuals will attempt to find negative attributes of an out-group in order to enhance their
own self-image (Blascovich, Wyer, Swart & Kibler, 1997).
Much of the research to date considers the link between violence and Black people.
However, racism towards the Asian community has become increasingly prominent with
ideas of terror and hate linked to Asian religions such as Islam (Dalal, 2008). Studies on the
mental health of Asians have suggested a significant association between racial
discrimination and clinical symptoms such as depression (Bhui et al., 2005). Research into
Asian Indians suggests that increased exposure to White racial contexts – such as cultural and
racial environments - causes racism related stress to increase, thus suggesting that Asians
experiences of racism are a significant cause of stress for Asian Indians (Tummalla-Narra,
Inman & Ettigi, 2011). One reason for this, as suggested by Drake et al. (2010) may be due to
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 6the terrorist attack referred to as 9/11, in which many American citizens were exposed to
media information in which Muslims were depicted in a negative manner, leading to a
negative public opinion of Muslims. Such experiences may contribute to the research in
which Muslims receive negative evaluations.
The measure of racial attitudes has been described as an elusive quest by
psychologists (Saucier & Miller, 2003). Outward racism has decreased in recent years
(Dovido & Gaertner, 2000), yet racism appears to still exist but in more subtle forms in which
individuals are more hesitant to express (McConahay, 1986). There are a number of explicit
tests used to measure racism, such as the Modern Racism Scale (MMRS) (McConahay et al.,
1981), the Attitudes Toward Blacks Scale (ATB) (Brigham, 1993), the Pro-Black and Anti-
Black Attitude Questionnaire (Katz & Hass, 1988), Johnson-Lecci Scale (JLS) (Johnson &
Lecci, 2003), the Social Dominance Orientation Questionnaire (SDOQ) (Pratto, Sidanius,
Stallworth & Malle, 1994) and the Racial Experience Questionnaire (REQ) (Campbell,
Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes & Stewart, 2011). However, the Modern Racism Scale is
designed to measure more subtle forms of racism (Dovidio, 2002).
The Modern Racism Scale (MRS) was developed by McConahay (1986), its aim is to
measure the cognitive component of racial attitudes, and capture modern forms of racism.
The MRS requires participants to agree or disagree with a list of beliefs that White people
may or may not have about Black people. It then requires participants to do the same but with
a different set of ‘old-fashioned’ beliefs. The theory of the MRS is that individuals’ cognitive
belief systems are influenced by both the attitudes towards Black people and also by
historical context. A study by McConahay (1983) required participants to evaluate job
candidates with identical resumes, with a picture of either a Black or a White candidate under
contexts made to elicit negative or positive discriminations. Results found that when the
candidate was Black, the MRS was negatively correlated with hiring evaluations in the
negative context and positively correlated in the positive context. However, when the
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 7candidate for the job was White, neither context or MRS related to the participants’ hiring
evaluations. This study demonstrates how the MRS can be successful in identifying prejudice
against Black people in a modern day setting.
Another explicit test used to measure implicit racial attitudes is the Johnson-Lecci
Scale (JLS) (Johnson & Lecci, 2003). The JLS is a multi-component self-report measure
designed to examine racial attitudes of Black people towards White people. The measure
considers in-group directed stigmatization, out-group directed negative beliefs towards White
people and discriminatory expectations from White people. Results indicated that negative in-
group and out-group relations predicted higher levels of negative interpersonal relations with
White people. Evidence suggests the JLS can be used as a robust measure of anti-White
attitudes of Black people, a study measuring the validity of the JLS suggested that Black in-
group attitudes consisting of expectations of racism were a predictor of perceived racism
(Johnson, Lecci & Swim, 2006).
The Racial Experience Questionnaire (REQ) (Campbell et al., 2011) is a method of
measuring individuals’ experiences with different social groups. The REQ relates to the
contact theory, which suggests that the more an individual mixes and interacts with a
different social group then the less prejudice they become towards said group (Emerson,
Kimbro & Yancey, 2002). This theory has been applied to racism; a study by Emerson et al.
found that individuals who had social interactions with individuals of a different race were
less likely to behave in a discriminatory manner than those with non-interracial social
relations. These findings illustrate the significance of the REQ as a measure of interracial
experiences and a potential predictor of racial discrimination.
Another explicit measure, the Social Dominance Orientation Questionnaire (SDOQ)
(Pratto et al, 1994), is a method of measuring the desire for equality and inequality amongst
social groups. The SDOQ can be used to measure a large number of both political and social
ideologies that favor group-based hierarchy. The questionnaire has been found to be useful in
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 8the measure of racism; Pretto et al. found that during the war against Iraq, anti-Arab racism
correlated with SDOQ scores. These findings are significant as they demonstrate the link
between the desire for inequality and racism, indicating that the SDOQ may be a useful tool
in measuring this.
Although explicit tests can be successful in measuring racism, there are some
limitations with using self-report measures. One prominent issue with using explicit measures
such as questionnaires is that they are subject to social desirability. Early studies indicate that
individuals are more likely to endorse an item on a self-report measure that describes a
socially desirable quality than they are one that describes an undesirable quality (Edwards,
1953). Pedregon et al. (2012), expanded on these findings; they found that individuals
produced a ‘better than average’ effect when completing questionnaires, expressing a belief
that they possess more socially desirable qualities than ‘people in general’. Such research is
relevant to the present study as it involves questionnaires which some may perceive to
contain items that highlight undesirable qualities – such as racism and prejudice, which could
affect the validity of such measures as participants may be reluctant to report such qualities.
Krysan and Couper (2003) found that social context can also exert dramatic effects on
the answers individuals provide to self-report measures; for example whether the researcher
is the same race as the individual or of a different race, politeness of the researcher and mere
presence of a researcher. In relation to this, a study by Summers and Hammonds (1966)
found that undergraduates who completed an anonymous self-report questionnaire distributed
in a classroom, displayed decreased levels of racial prejudice when one of the researchers
was black than when both researchers were white. Thus suggesting the presence of a black
individual was sufficient in altering the racial prejudice expressed and suppressed negative
racial attitudes.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 9A further issue with explicit measures is suggested by Back, Schmukle and Egloff
(2009) who proposed the Behaviour Process Model of Personality. The model suggests that
questionnaires tap into pre-existing representations of self-concept and are therefore limited
in assessing implicit cognitions related to self-concept that are impulsive and beyond
awareness. Back et al. suggest this is due to individuals providing answers that comply with
pre-existing ideas of their self-concept. The model indicates that an individuals’ self-concept
can alter the answers they provide on self-report measures such as questionnaires. The model
also suggests that questionnaires are limited in their ability to measure implicit attitudes as
these attitudes may be beyond an individual’s awareness.
Implicit attitudes can be defined as “introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately
identified) traces of past experience that mediate favourable or unfavourable feeling,
thoughts, or action toward social objects” (Greenwald and Banaji, 1995). Implicit attitudes
can impact individuals’ beliefs and behaviours; a study by Amodio and Devine (2006) on
implicit race bias and its effects on behavior, found that implicit race bias was directly
associated with race-biased behavior such as race discrimination and race stereotyping. It is
believed that individuals are often unaware of their own implicit beliefs and attitudes and
how they can develop into actions or judgments (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2006). The most
prominent measure of implicit attitudes is the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald,
McGhee & Schwartz, 1998). Implicit attitudes can come in the form of racism, measuring
such attitudes can provide a more accurate measure of racism than measuring explicit
attitudes.
A study comparing implicit and explicit measures of racial attitudes found that
participants who scored high on explicit measures of racism did not discriminate on
complexion (eg. White, Hispanic, African American), whereas participants who scored high
on implicit measures of racism did discriminate on complexion (Iyengar, Messing, Bailenson
& Hahn, 2010).This study suggests that implicit measures of racism are a more accurate way
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 10of measuring racism as individuals racial attitudes were more pronounced when using
implicit measures, rather than explicit measures in which individuals had the opportunity to
consider their answers and therefore their discriminative racial attitudes were less
pronounced. Another benefit of using implicit measures rather than explicit measures such as
self-reports is that implicit measures assess mental content in an indirect manner, the
response received from the participant during the procedure is used to assess mental content
rather than the individual providing their own ideas about their mental content (Nosek,
Hawkins & Frazier, 2011). This is important as individuals do not have chance to think about
their response or their answer during the implicit measure procedure, meaning their own
beliefs and ideas do not affect their response, thus providing a more accurate assessment of
the individuals mental content. Similarly, Nosek et al. suggest that there are a number of
factors which limit the validity of introspectively derived explicit measures. These factors
include: limits in peoples motivation to report mental content they are aware of, limits in their
opportunity to report such mental content and limits in their ability – individuals may not be
able to access such mental content through introspection. Nosek et al. argue that by using
implicit measures, all of these limitations are addressed.
Implicit measures can be an accurate tool in measuring implicit attitudes towards
racism. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a widely used method in measuring implicit
attitudes (Yang, He & Gu, 2012). Its’ theory relies on the idea that individuals associate
words with an object or picture more quickly if one has associated it in memory than if an
individual is asked to associate a word with an object that they have not previously
associated. The IAT has been used to measure implicit attitudes towards racism; research
indicated that individuals were more likely to associate positive words with White people
more likely to associate negative words with Black people (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2006).
Although the IAT can be used to measure implicit attitudes, there are other implicit
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 11measuring techniques that some view to have benefits over the IAT (Mckenna, Barnes-
Holmes, Barnes-Holmes & Stewart, 2007).
The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is another method of
measuring implicit attitudes; the IRAP is a computer-based task that requires participants to
match stimuli in a way that is consistent and inconsistent with the beliefs and attitudes
thought to be representative of their social group. Participants are required to complete the
task quickly and accurately. The theory of the IRAP is that the time it takes for an individual
to provide an answer will be quicker for items and relations one has already considered than
items one has not (Cunningham, Preacher, & Banaji, 2001). The IRAP has been found to
have benefits over the IAT test. The main limitation of the IAT is that although the IAT
recognizes an association between and object and a word, it does not demonstrate how the
items are associated. However, the IRAP uses relational terms (eg. SIMILAR, OPPOSITE,
BETTER, WORSE) so that such associations can be measured. A study on the fakeability of
the IRAP was conducted, which suggested that the IRAP cannot be readily faked (Mckenna
et al., 2007) unlike the IAT test (McDaniel et al., 2009).
The IRAP is effective in highlighting potential social biases that individuals may
possess such as racism. The IRAP has been shown to be a successful measure of implicit
attitudes towards race as it makes deception extremely difficult; therefore it is difficult for
individuals to hide such attitudes (Drake, Kellum & Wilson, 2010). A study by Drake et al.
(2010) was conducted on 67 students using the IRAP to measure race and religion. Results
showed that participants were more likely to attribute positive evaluations to the word
“Christian” and negative evaluations to the word “Muslim”. Drake et al. attributed these
results to the 9/11 bombings, which resulted in a negative public opinion of Muslims.
Similarly, a study by Campbell et al. (2011) examined the use of the IRAP as a measure of
implicit attitudes towards race, between White participants and Black people. The study
suggested that in the context of mundane objects there was a pro-White and pro-Black bias
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 12towards seeing these groups as safe. However, when a dangerous object was introduced,
Black people were seen as both safe and dangerous. These results indicate an in-group bias,
as participants found it more difficult to acknowledge members of their own race and social
group as ever being dangerous, in comparison to a different social group - Black people. This
research not only demonstrates the ability of the IRAP as a race measure, but also suggests
that further research on the link between race bias and dangerous objects could be beneficial.
There is consistent research suggesting that individuals perceive other races to be
more violent than their own (Correl et al., 2011; Oliver & Fonash, 2002; Chiricos et al.,
1997). However much of the research to date focuses on racist attitudes towards Black
people, there is limited research considering implicit racist attitudes towards Asian people
from White people. The current study aims to explore both implicit and explicit measures of
racism to explain perceptions of dangerousness, and compare the differences between these
measures. The explicit measures used in this study will be the modified Modern Racism
Scale (MMRS) (McConahay, 1986), modified Johnson-Lecci Scale (MJLS) (Johnson &
Lecci, 2003), the modified Racial Experience Questionnaire (MREQ) (Campbell et al., 2011)
and the modified Social Dominance Orientation Questionnaire (MSDOQ) (Pratto et al.,1994);
the implicit measure used will be the IRAP. It is predicted that the IRAP will provide a more
accurate measure of racist attitudes than the explicit measures. The first stage of the study
will involve participants completing the explicit measures; the second part of the study will
involve participants completing the IRAP. The IRAP will contain pictures of both an Asian
male and a white male holding the same variety of dangerous objects.
Racism is still a significant problem in society, the measure of such attitudes can help
to highlight social opinion and prevent ethnic inequalities. The present study will use the
IRAP to explore racism, in particular, perceptions of dangerousness. Following this,
participants will then be asked to complete 4 questionnaires; these will be used as explicit
measures of racism. Results from the implicit and explicit measures will be compared.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 13
Method
The IRAP raises a number of questions for behavior psychologists regarding its’
experimental features. Some of these questions include whether the use of ‘d’ and ‘k’ key
presses are the most competent way of facilitating an IRAP response. Other questions raised
consider whether it would be more beneficial to include sample stimuli at the top center of
the IRAP screen rather than in each corner of the screen. An integral feature of the IRAP, and
many implicit measures, is that participants are not provided with adequate time to consider
and make conscious responses. As a result of this, features of the IRAP such as the
presentation of the stimulus are important to participants. As these features are so significant
to the measure, all trials within the IRAP are presented in the same format. The study aims to
explore perceptions of dangerousness in Asian and White people using both implicit
measures (IRAP) and explicit measures (a variety of race based questionnaires).
Participants
A total number of thirty four white individuals took part in the study, participants
were aged between 18-25 years old (M: 21 and 8 months), recruited via online social
networks (e.g. Facebook) and Edge Hill University notice boards. All participants
demonstrated high levels of English fluency and had normal or corrected to normal vision.
The participants had no prior experience of completing an IRAP and there was no incentive
for their participation in the study. Three of the participants were excluded from the study as
their mean responses were below 80% accuracy; one participant was excluded from the study
as their mean response latency was above 2000 milliseconds.
Settings
The study was conducted in a quiet room free of distraction. During the completion of
the study only the researcher and the participant were present in the room and the task was
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 14completed on an individual basis. The researcher interacted verbally during instructional
phases of the study but not during test phases.
Apparatus and Materials
The experiment consisted of two basic sets of materials, the explicit measures and the
implicit measures. The explicit measures, consisted of four likert scale questionnaires
including the modified Modern Racism Scale (MMRS) (McConahay, 1986), modified
Johnson-Lecci Scale (MJLS) (Johnson & Lecci, 2003), the modified Racial Experience
Questionnaire (MREQ) (Campbell et al., 2011) and the modified Social Dominance
Orientation Questionnaire (MSDOQ) (Pratto et al., 1994). The implicit measures consisted of
the IRAP.
Likert scales. The participants were provided with four likert scale questionnaires.
The modified Modern Racism Scale (MMRS) (McConahay, 1986) aims to measure the
cognitive component of racial attitudes, and capture modern and subtle forms of racism. The
MMRS scores were measured on a 5-point scale e.g. ‘Asian people should live far out in the
countryside’, to which a participant would answer between ‘Strongly Agree’ (1) to ‘Strongly
Disagree’ (5). A low number indicates racist beliefs towards Asian people, and a high number
indicated non-racist beliefs.
The modified Johnson-Lecci Scale (MJLS) (Johnson & Lecci, 2003) is designed to
examine racial attitudes of Black people towards White people. The MJLS scores were
measured on a 4-point scale, e.g. ‘I believe that the majority of White people in the UK really
believe that Asian people are genetically inferior’, to which a participant would answer
between ‘Definitely Agree’ (1) and ‘Definitely Disagree’ (4). A low number indicates a belief
that the majority of white people in the UK possess racist views towards Asian people.
The modified Racial Experience Questionnaire (MREQ) (Campbell et al., 2011) is a
method used to measure individuals’ experiences with different social groups. The MREQ
scores were measured on a 1-6 point scale, e.g. ‘Do you know any Asian people in the UK’ to
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 15which a participant would answer between ‘None’ (1) and ‘Many’ (3). ‘Would you say that
your overall experiences of meeting Asian people have been positive or negative?’, to which
a participant would answer between ‘Very Negative’ (1) and ‘Very Positive’ (6). Low
numbers indicated a low amount of social experiences with Asian people; high numbers
indicated a high amount of social experiences.
The modified Social Dominance Orientation Questionnaire (MSDOQ) (Pratto et al.,
1994), is a method of measuring the desire for equality and inequality amongst social groups.
The MSDOQ scores were measured on a 7-point scale, e.g. ‘It would be good if groups could
be equal’, to which a participant would answer between ‘Strongly Disagree’ (1) and ‘Strongly
Agree’ (7). High numbers indicated a desire for equality amongst groups; a low number
indicated a desire for group segregation.
The Irap. Participants completed the IRAP on a DELL desktop computer with a
Pentium 4 processor. The IRAP procedure was presented via a program written in Visual
Basic (Version 6.0.), the program controlled all aspects of the presentation of stimulus and
recording the participants’ responses.
The stimuli presented during the IRAP consisted of two groups of pictures, an Asian
male holding dangerous weapons (e.g. a knife) and a White male holding dangerous weapons
(e.g. a hammer). The pictures were original photographs taken by the researchers;
photographs were edited in size in order to be as similar as possible. The target stimuli
contained two words ‘Safe’ and ‘Dangerous. The response options contained the words
‘AGREE’ and ‘DISAGREE’. The stimulus used in the experiment is presented in Figure 1
and Figure 2.
General Procedure
All participants completed the study during a single session; the session lasted
between 30 and 40 minutes in total. Breaks were made available during the experiments,
however no participants opted for one.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 16Procedure
Participants were required to fill in a consent form before participation in the
experiment. Participants were then presented with four questionnaires to complete. Following
this participants were then required to complete the IRAP.
Verbal Instructions.
The procedure commences with a series of detailed instructions for the completion
and understanding of the IRAP trials. Instructions were along as followed (see Appendix A
for full instructions):
The study aims to explore the cognitive processes that are used in decisions involving
memory, and test research and theories of cognitive processes that occur beyond ones
awareness. The task requires you to sign a consent form, complete four questionnaires
and complete a computer based the task. The task will be displayed on the computer
screen and your responses to the task will be entered using the keyboard. You can
have a break from the study while the instructions are displayed on the screen and can
withdraw at any time without providing reason.
Figure 1. A representation of the Asian trial type.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 17The computer task will consist of a number of different blocks. During the task you
will be presented with a screen that looks like this [Figure 1 is presented on a sheet of
paper to participant]. The picture will be either of a White person or an Asian person
with the words ‘Safe’ or ‘Dangerous’ beneath it. Prior to beginning a block I will tell
you how to answer during that block, for example I may ask you to answer that when
you see the Asian person you answer that he is ‘Dangerous’, so when you see the
picture I just showed you, you would answer ‘AGREE’. However, if I asked you to
answer that the Asian person was ‘Safe’ you would answer ‘DISAGREE’. To select
‘AGREE’ or ‘DISAGREE’ you will press either the ‘d’ key or the ‘k’ key, the
position of ‘AGREE’ or ‘DISAGREE’ will randomly swap from left to right, so you
will not always select the same key to answer ‘AGREE’ or ‘DISAGREE’.
During the experiment you will be asked to respond as quickly and as accurately as
you can. If you provide an incorrect response, a red ‘X’ will appear on the screen, to
remove the red ‘X’ and continue onto the next screen you should press the correct
response quickly.
The first two blocks of the task are for practice so you can get used to the task, the
practice blocks will repeat until you reach at least 80% accuracy on the trials and
respond faster than 2000 milliseconds (i.e. 2 seconds) on average. Once this is
achieved you will automatically continue onto the test-phase of the task.
Feedback
The IRAP trials are referred to as test trials generally (similarly to the IAT), incorrect
responses are met with automated corrective written feedback and a correction procedure.
Should participants enter an incorrect response, a red ‘X’ will remain on the screen below the
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 18target stimuli until a correct response is entered. The next trial will appear automatically
following a correct response. When participants provide a correct response during trials, the
next screen will appear automatically.
IRAP Trials
The IRAP trials (i.e. both test blocks and practice blocks) were presented in an
identical format in which practice trials were completed first. The number of practice blocks
participants completed ranged between two and eight blocks; this was dependent on their
performance during the practice blocks. Once participants achieved the mastery criteria of the
IRAP (both accuracy and response latency), they then proceeded onto the first test block.
Participants were required to complete a total of six test blocks. After completion of each
block of trials, participants were presented with automated feedback showing their percentage
of correct trials and their median response times (in milliseconds).
Trial-Types
Consistent and Inconsistent Responding.
Each IRAP block of trials was designated as consistent or inconsistent for
experimental reasons. Participants were presented with a minimum of two practice blocks
(one consistent and one inconsistent), following this participants were presented with six test
blocks (three consistent and three inconsistent). The sequence during the IRAP was presented
in alternating blocks of inconsistent and consistent trials. The result of this meant that
participants were required to switch their patterns of accurate responding across the blocks.
To avoid order effects, the block sequencing was counterbalanced across the participants. To
achieve this, half of the participants were required to complete a consistent practice block
first, followed by the inconsistent practice block, followed by the consistent test block and so
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 19on. The other half of participants were required to complete the inconsistent block first and so
on.
The responses on any trial were recorded as correct or incorrect depending on whether
the trial block was in the consistent or inconsistent category. Trials were categorized as
consistent when the relations among the sample and the target stimuli were consistent to the
views predicted to be held by participants before the study. On these trials participants were
expected to more readily relate positive evaluations with ‘Safe’, and the negative evaluations
with ‘Dangerous’. For example, a consistent trial would be a picture of the White person
being ‘Safe’ and the Asian person being ‘Dangerous’. An inconsistent trial would be a picture
of the Asian person being ‘Safe’ and the White person being ‘Dangerous’.
Figure 2. A representation of the Asian and White trial types.
Trials were categorized as inconsistent when the relations among the sample and
target stimuli were not consistent with the views predicted to be held by the participants prior
to the study.
Consider the example trials in Figure 2. On consistent trials the correct responses
would be selecting ‘AGREE’ as ‘Dangerous’ for the Asian male and selecting ‘AGREE’ as
‘Safe’ for the White male. The end of the sixth trial block was the end of the experiment for
the participants. Following this, participants were debriefed and thanked for participating.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 20
Results
IRAP
The IRAP consisted of three blocks of four trial types, these trial types were ‘Safe
White’, ‘Safe Asian’, ‘Dangerous White’ and ‘Dangerous Asian’. The ‘Safe White’ D-IRAP
scores were positive (M = .30, SD = .38) indicating that participants agreed that White people
were ‘Safe’. However, participants were only slightly slower matching the word ‘Dangerous’
and ‘TRUE’ to pictures of White people, as suggested in the ‘Dangerous White’ D-IRAP
scores which were negative (M = -.06, SD = .43). This result suggests participants did not
display a strong preference in indicating that the White person was ‘Dangerous’ or not
‘Dangerous’, suggesting they held a neutral opinion. Similarly, the ‘Safe Asian’ D-IRAP
scores were positive (M = .34, SD = .36) and indicate that participants were only slightly
slower when matching the picture of an Asian person to the word ‘Safe’ and ‘TRUE. This
finding suggests that participants did not display a strong preference in indicating an Asian
Person as ‘Safe’ or not ‘Safe’, suggesting they held a neutral opinion.
However, participants agreed that Asians were ‘DANGEROUS as seen in the
‘Dangerous Asian’ scores which were negative (M = -.19, SD = .40). The descriptive
statistics for the trial types suggest that participants agreed that White people were safe and
that Asian people were dangerous. Participants held neutral opinions on White people being
dangerous and Asian people being Safe.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics For IRAP Trial Type D-IRAP Means
Trial Type Mean SD
Safe White .30 .38
Safe Asian .34 .36
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 21Dangerous White -.06 .43
Dangerous Asian -.1873 .40
A one way t-test was conducted to examine the differences in response latencies
amongst the four IRAP trial types: ‘Safe White’, ‘Safe Asian’, ‘Dangerous White’ and
‘Dangerous Asian’. It was predicted that response latencies for the ‘Safe White’ trial type
would be less than the ‘Safe Asian’ trial type, due to predictions that these beliefs were
consistent to their own so would therefore answer more quickly. The results for the ‘Safe
White’ trial type t(29) = 4.42, p<.05 were significant. Results for the ‘Safe Asian’ trial type
were also significant t(29) = -5.181, p<.05. This suggests that participants took longer to
answer in the ‘Safe Asian’ than in the ‘Safe White’ trial type. These findings indicate that
responding was significantly different to zero, indicating a stronger than neutral response
towards White people being safe, which suggests participants agreed White people to be safe.
It was predicted that the response latencies for the ‘Dangerous White’ trial type would
be more than the ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial type, due to predictions that these beliefs were
inconsistent to their own, so participants would answer more slowly. The mean scores
indicated that the mean response latencies of the ‘Dangerous White’ trial type (M = -.06, SD
= .43) were less than that of the ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial type (M = -.19, SD = .19). The
results for the ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial type were significant t(29) = -2.56, p<.05. This
suggests that participants took longer to answer for the ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial type. These
findings indicate that responding was significantly different to zero, indicating a stronger than
neutral response towards Asian people being dangerous, which suggests participants agreed
Asian people were dangerous. The results for the ‘Dangerous White’ trial type were non-
significant t(29) = -.79, p>.05. This indicates that participants were neutral on White people
being dangerous.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 22Two-Way Within Subjects ANOVA
The latency times in milliseconds of the IRAP trial types (‘Safe Asian’, ‘Safe White’,
‘Dangerous White’, ‘Dangerous Asian’) were examined. The data was analyzed using a two-
way within subjects ANOVA. The mean D-IRAP and standard deviations for the trial types
can be seen in Table 1. It was predicted that the ‘Safe Asian’ and ‘Dangerous White’ trial
type latencies would be greater than that of the ‘Dangerous Asian’ and ‘Safe White’
latencies. Mauchly’s test of Sphericity was p>.05 for all trial types indicating that they all had
similar variances, therefore an ANOVA could be used. There was a non-significant main
effect of Block Number, meaning that Block Number did not affect latency times F(2, 58) =
3.30, p>.05, ηp2 = .10.There was a significant main effect of Trial Type, indicating that Trial
Type had a significant effect on latency times F(3, 87) = 12.52, p<.05, ηp2 = .30. There was
an non-significant interaction between Block Number and Trial Type, indicating that Block
Number did not have an effect on Trial Type latency times F(6, 174) = 1.02, p>.05, ηp2
= .03.As this interaction was not significant, it was not necessary to look at the simple main
effects. In summary, the order the block order did not have a significant effect on latency
times, meaning that there were no order effects in the study. Trial types had a significant
effect on latency times, meaning that latency times were significantly affected by the varying
trial types.
To explore this further, a post hoc Bonferroni test was conducted and the pairwise
comparisons were examined in order to compare the significance in differences of the trial
types; ‘Safe White’, ‘Dangerous White’, ‘Safe Asian’ and ‘Dangerous Asian’. Two largely
significant results were indicated, significant differences were observed between the ‘Safe
White’ and ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial types (p<0.05) and between the ‘Safe Asian’ and
‘Dangerous Asian’ trial types (p<0.05). These results suggest that the ‘Safe White’ versus
‘Dangerous Asian’ trial types and the ‘Safe Asian’ versus ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial types,
displayed the most significant differences.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 23Results indicated that the order the blocks during the IRAP did not have a significant
effect on latency times, meaning that there were no order effects in the study. Trial types had
a significant effect on latency times, meaning that latency times were significantly affected
by the varying trial types. Findings also indicated that the largest significant differences were
between the ‘Safe White’ and ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial types and the ‘Safe Asian’ and
‘Dangerous Asian’ trial types.
Explicit Measures
The study used four explicit measures, the Modified Johnson-Lecci Scale (MJLS), the
Modified Modern Racism Scale (MMRS), the Modified Racial Experience Questionnaire
(MREQ) and the Modified Social Dominance Orientation Questionnaire (MSDOQ). Table 2
shows the means and standard deviations of the explicit measures.
The MJLS (Johnson & Lecci, 2003) is designed to examine racial attitudes of Black
people towards White people. The measure contains 30 items, e.g. ‘I believe that the majority
of White people in the UK really believe that Asian people are genetically inferior’, to which
a participant would answer between ‘Definitely Agree’ (1) and ‘Definitely Disagree’ (4).
Scores were measured on a 4-point scale (see Appendix C), scores ranged from 30-120. A
low number indicated a belief that the majority of white people in the UK possess racist
views towards Asian people; a high score indicated the belief that the majority of white
people in the UK do not possess racist views towards Asian people. The mean score of the
MJLS scores (M= 3.4, SD = .33) indicated that participants believed that the majority of
white people in the UK did not possess racist views towards Asian people.
The MMRS (McConahay, 1986) aims to measure the cognitive component of racial
attitudes, and capture modern and subtle forms of racism. The measure contains 17 items, e.g.
‘Asian people should live far out in the countryside’, to which a participant would answer
between ‘Strongly Agree’ (1) to ‘Strongly Disagree’ (5). Scores were measured on a 5-point
scale (see Appendix B), scores ranged from 17-85. A low number indicated racist beliefs
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 24towards Asian people, and a high number indicated non-racist beliefs. The mean score of the
MMRS (M =2.52, SD = .56) indicated that participants held relatively racist views towards
Asian people.
The MREQ (Campbell et al., 2011) is a method used to measure individuals’
experiences with different social groups. The measure contains 6 items, eg. ‘Would you say
that your overall experiences of meeting Asian people have been positive or negative?’, to
which a participant would answer between ‘Very Negative’ (1) and ‘Very Positive’ (6). ‘Do
you know any Asian people in the UK’ to which a participant would answer between ‘None’
(1) and ‘Many’ (3). Scores were measured on a 2-6 point scale (see Appendix D), scores
ranged from 6-20. Low scores indicated a low amount of experiences with Asian people. The
mean score of the MREQ scores (M = 1.91, SD = .4), indicated that participants had a low
amount of experiences with Asian people. The mean score for Question 1 of the MREQ (Do
you know any Asian people in the UK?) (M = .06, SD = .19) indicated that the amount of
Asian people they knew was low. The mean score for Question 2 of the MREQ (Do you have
any acquaintances who are Asian?) (M = .49, SD = .19) indicated that participants had a low
amount of Asian acquaintances. The mean score for Question 3 of the MREQ (Do you work
with any Asian people?) (M = .42, SD = .17) indicated that participants worked with a low
amount of Asian people. The mean score for Question 4 of the MREQ (Would you say that
you have had one or more close friendships with an Asian person?) (M = .51, SD = .17),
indicated that most participants did not have one or more close friendships with an Asian
person. The mean score for Question 5 of the MREQ (Do many Asian people live in your
neighbourhood?) (M = .05, SD = .03), indicated that participants had a low amount of Asian
neighbours. The mean score for Question 6 of the MREQ (Would you say that your overall
experiences of meeting Asian people have been positive or negative?) (M = .13, SD = .04),
indicated that participants experiences with Asian people were mainly negative.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 25The MSDOQ (Pratto et al., 1994) is a method of measuring the desire for equality and
inequality amongst social groups. The item contains 15 items, e.g. ‘It would be good if
groups could be equal’, to which a participant would answer between ‘Strongly Disagree’ (1)
and ‘Strongly Agree’ (7). Scores were measured on a 7-point scale, scores ranged from 15-
105. High numbers indicated a desire for group based discrimination. The mean score of the
MSDOQ (M = 4.12, SD = .61) indicated that participants leant slightly more towards a desire
for group equality than for group based discrimination.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics For Explicit Measures Means
Questionnaire Mean SD
Modified Johnson-Lecci Scale 3.40 .33
Modified Modern Racism Scale 2.52 .56
Modified Racial Experience Questionnaire 1.91 .40
Modern Racial Experience Questionnaire Question 1 .059 .19
Modern Racial Experience Questionnaire Question 2 .49 .19
Modern Racial Experience Questionnaire Question 3 .42 .17
Modern Racial Experience Questionnaire Question 4 .51 .17
Modern Racial Experience Questionnaire Question 5 .05 .03
Modern Racial Experience Questionnaire Question 6 .13 .04
Modified Social Dominance Questionnaire 4.12 .61
Correlations between Implicit and Explicit Measures
Correlations between the Explicit and Implicit measures were examined; there were a
number of correlations found amongst the explicit measures and one correlation found
between the explicit and implicit measure. Firstly, a moderate negative correlation was found
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 26between the Modified Racial Experience Questionnaire (MREQ) and the Modified Modern
Racism Scale (MMRS) (r = -.427; n = 30; p<.05). The correlation was significant, thus
suggesting that participants who scored higher on the MREQ scored lower on the MMRS.
These results indicate that individuals who have more social experiences with Asian people
are less likely to be racist.
A moderate positive correlation was found between the MREQ and the Modified
Johnson-Lecci Scale (MJLS), the correlation was significant (r = .43; n = 30; p<.05). This
correlation suggests that participants who scored high on the MREQ also scored high on the
MJLS. These results indicate that individuals who have more social experiences with Asian
people are less likely to perceive the white British public to be racist.
A moderate negative correlation was found between the ‘Safe White’ IRAP trial type
and the MLJS, the correlation was significant (r = -.39; n = 30; p<.05). This correlation
suggests that people, who were biased towards ‘White Safe’, were more likely to report racist
attitudes on the MJLS, and consider society as racist.
In summary, participants agreed that white people were safe and that Asian people
were dangerous on the IRAP. Participants where neutral on White people being dangerous
and Asian people being safe. The explicit measures indicated that individuals believed the
majority of White people in the UK did not possess racist views towards Asian people. It was
also found that participants self-reported attitudes indicated moderately racist attitudes, in
regards to their views against Asian people. Individuals also had low social experiences with
Asian people, and had a slightly stronger desire for group equality than group segregation.
Correlations suggest that individuals who have more social experiences with Asian
people are less likely to be racist. It was also found that individuals who have more social
experiences with Asian people are less likely to perceive the white British public to be racist.
As predicted in the study, individuals perceived Asian people to be dangerous and white
people to be safe.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 27Discussion
The findings of the present study indicate that participants perceived White people to
be safe and Asian people to be dangerous, when both were presented with dangerous objects.
The explicit measures indicated that participants believed the majority of white people in the
UK did not possess racist views towards Asian people. In contrast to this, the findings
suggested that participants held relatively racist views towards Asian people. Results also
indicated that participants had a low amount of social experiences with Asian people, and
largely negative experiences. The findings suggest that individuals who had more social
experiences with Asian people were less likely to display racist attitudes and less likely to
perceive the British public as racist towards Asian people. Individuals that did consider the
British public to be racist were biased towards perceiving White people as safe.
These findings are important as they highlight a same race bias in perceptions of
dangerousness. Results support the idea that racism is still a major issue in society (Pascoe et
al., 2009) and that racism towards Asian people is increasingly prominent (Dalal, 2008) as
racist attitudes were expressed on both explicit and implicit measures, revealing a same race
bias. Implicit race bias has been directly associated with race discrimination and race
stereotyping (Amodio & Devine, 2006), so therefore any research that furthers psychological
knowledge on this subject is important as it can help to both highlight the issue and help
develop methods of counteracting it. Much of the research to date regarding implicit attitudes
has measured racial bias between White people and Black people (Correl et al., 2011), results
of such studies indicated that White people were more likely to perceive a Black person more
dangerous than a White person. This finding is consistent with the results from the present
study, despite the stimuli featuring Asian and White people. This highlights the issue that a
same race bias towards perceived dangerousness spans across multiple races, not just towards
Black people.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 28The findings of the present study are consistent with past research that highlights a
same race bias, in which individuals are more likely to perceive people of a different race to
their own as more dangerous (Correl et al., 2011; Oliver & Fonash, 2002; Greenwald et al.,
2002). The results are also consistent with research using other implicit measures of racism,
such as the IAT. Barnes-Holmes et al. (2006) found that individuals were more likely to
associate positive words with White people and associate negative words with Black people.
The present study shows similar findings, as participants were more likely to associate the
negative word ‘Dangerous’ with Asian people, and associate the positive word ‘Safe’ with
White people.
The current study also helps to further research on the utility of the IRAP as a
measure of implicit racial attitudes. The findings of the present study were consistent with
past research, demonstrating that the IRAP is an effective tool in measuring implicit racial
attitudes (Drake et al., 2010; Campbell et al., 2011). Campbell et al. found an in-group bias
from White people towards the out-group, when a dangerous object was present. Suggesting
participants found it more difficult to acknowledge members of their own race to be
dangerous, than members of a different race. The present study indicated the same findings,
participants were more likely to report Asian people to be dangerous than they was to report
White people as dangerous when a dangerous object was present, thus showing an in-group
bias.
The comparison between the explicit measures and the IRAP proved useful. The
explicit measures suggested individuals held relatively racist views; these findings were
consistent with the IRAP results which indicated a same race bias. Greenwald et al. (2003)
suggest that the more consistent the results between implicit and explicit measures are, the
greater the validity of what is being measured. The finding that individuals reported
moderately racist views in the modified Modern Racism Scale (McConahay, 1986), goes
against the idea that individuals are less likely to report undesirable social qualities – such as
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 29racism – on questionnaires; as they may want to disguise such characteristics (Edwards,
1953). This is important as it shows individuals are sometimes willing to explicitly express
undesirable qualities, it also suggests that explicit measures can be successfully used as a
measure of racism.
In relation to theoretical issues, the current study supports ideas presented in
both Social Identity Theory and Contact Theory. Social Identity Theory suggests that
people will discriminate against races different to their own and attempt to find
negative attributes in order to enhance their own self- image (Blascovich et al.,1997).
The findings of the current study supported this idea, as despite the White male and the
Asian male both holding dangerous objects, participants perceived the White male to be
safe and the Asian male to be dangerous.
The findings also support the ideas proposed in Contact Theory, which suggests
that the more an individual mixes and interacts with a different social group to their
own then the less likely they are to be prejudice towards this group. This was supported
with correlations between the Racial Experience Questionnaire (Campbell et al., 2011),
an explicit measure measuring individuals experiences with Asian people and the
modified Modern Racism Scale (McConahay, 1986). Findings indicated that the more
social experiences a participant had with Asian people then the less likely they were to
hold racist attitudes towards Asian people in general.
The study contained several limitations. Firstly, the sample size used was
relatively small; this would have been marginally larger however the data for some
participants was removed due to not reaching the IRAP criteria. A second limitation of
the sample is that it contained only participants from the North West of England; this is
relevant as other areas of Britain may possess different attitudes than those contained
in the study. Similarly other areas of Britain may be more culturally diverse, meaning
individuals would have more social interactions with Asian people which could relate to
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 30Contact Theory (e.g. more social interactions with Asian people results in less prejudice
behaviour). A larger and more locationally diverse sample may have benefited results in
terms of generalizability and would also increase the external validity of the results.
A further limitation is that the IRAP only measures implicit attitudes in a lab
setting, and cannot predict prejudiced behaviours when individuals are in a natural
environment. Due to this fact it is important to recognize that racist attitudes revealed
in the IRAP may not necessary lead to discriminatory actions in a natural environment.
Despite this, both research to date and the present study suggest that the IRAP can
successfully be utilized as a means of revealing implicit attitudes such as racism that
may not be highlighted when using explicit measures.
There are a number of ideas for future research that could further psychological
knowledge of implicit racial attitudes and perceptions of dangerousness. Firstly, the
present study used only pictures of Males holding dangerous objects as stimuli in the
IRAP; it may be beneficial for future research to present pictures of Females holding
dangerous objects. It is possible that the gender of the person in the stimuli could affect
perceptions of dangerousness. A second idea for future research is to collect data from
participants of different race, for example testing whether Asian people perceive White
people to be more dangerous than individuals of their own race. Such research would
be beneficial as it would determine whether a same race bias is present amongst
various races or just amongst White people.
It may also be beneficial to manipulate the shade of an individual’s skin colour in
the IRAP stimuli, for example comparing light skinned Asian people to darker skinned
Asian people. This could determine whether the shade of a person’s skin affects
perceptions of dangerousness, for example, individuals may perceive people with
darker skin tones to be more dangerous or more safe. This research could not only
distinguish whether it is the shade of a person’s skin or the race of a person (e.g. Black
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 31or Asian) that affects an individual’s perception of skin, but also which of the two has
the biggest effect on such perceptions.
A further idea for future research would be to test participants holding stronger
racist views. Such results could be compared to non-racist individuals. The differences
in implicit attitudes between outwardly racist individuals and non-racist individuals
could be examined. Findings would be beneficial as such research could highlight the
contrasting levels of implicit racist attitudes held by outwardly racist individuals and
non-racist individuals.
The current study aimed to explore racism, in particular, perceptions of
dangerousness. It was predicted that White participants would perceive Asian people to
be dangerous and White people to be safe, when both races were holding dangerous
objects; results confirmed these predictions and provided further support for the IRAP
being a useful tool in the measure of implicit racial attitudes.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 32References
Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias:
Evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 652-661.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C. & Egloff, B. (2009). Predicting actual behavior from the
explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 97, 533-548.
Banaji, M. R. & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgements of
fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 181-198.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Power, P., Hayden, E., Milne, R. & Stewart, I.
(2006). Do you really know what you believe? Developing the Implicit
Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a direct measure of implicit
beliefs. The Irish Psychologist, 32(7), 169-177.
Bhui, K., Stansfeld, S., McKenzie, K., Karlsen, S., Nazroo, J., & Weich, S. (2005).
Racial/ethnic discrimination and common mental disorders among workers:
Findings from the EMPIRIC study of ethnic minority groups in the United
Kingdom. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 496–501.
Blascovich, J., Wyer, N., Swart, L. A. & Kibler, J. L. (1997). Racism and racial
categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1364-
1372.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 33Brigham, J. C. (1993). College students’ racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 1933-1967.
Campbell, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Stewart, I. (2011). Exploring screen
presentations in the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure
(IRAP). International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy,
11, 377-388.
Carter, R. T., Mazzula, S., Victoria, R., Vazquez, R., Hall, S., Smith, S., & ... Williams, B.
(2013). Initial development of the Race-Based Traumatic Stress Symptom
Scale: Assessing the emotional impact of racism. Psychological Trauma:
Theory, Research, Practice, And Policy, 5(1), 1-9.
Carmines, E. G., Sniderman, P. M. & Easter, B. C. 2011. “On the Meaning, Measurement,
and Implications of Racial Resentment.” The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science 634: 98-116.
Chiricos, T., Hogan, M., & Gertz, M. (1997). Racial composition of neighborhood and
fear of crime. Criminology, 25, 107-131.
Correll, J., Wittenbrink, B., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Goyle, A. (2011). Dangerous enough:
Moderating racial bias with contextual threat cues. Journal Of Experimental
Social Psychology, 47(1), 184-189.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 34Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K. J. & Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit attitude measures:
Consistency, stability and convergent validity. Psychological Science, 12, 163-
170.
Dalal, F. (2008). Thought paralysis: Tolerance, and the fear of Islam. Psychodynamic
Practice: Individuals, Groups And Organisations, 14(1), 77-95.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and
1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315-319.
Drake, C. E., Kellum, K. K., & Wilson, K. G. (2010). Examining the Implicit Relational
Assessment Procedure: Four preliminary studies. The Psychological Record,
60(1), 81-86.
Edwards, A. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and
the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology,
37,90–93.
Emerson, M. O., Kimbro, R., & Yancey, G. (2002). Contact theory extended: The effects of
prior racial contact on current social ties. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 745-
761.
Fleischhauer, M., Strobel, A., Enge, S., & Strobel, A. (2013). Assessing implicit cognitive
motivation: Developing and testing an Implicit Association Test to measure
need for cognition. European Journal Of Personality, 27(1), 15-29.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 35Greenwald, A.G., Nosek, B.A., & Banaji, M.R. (2003). Understanding and using the
Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.
Greenwald, A. G., Oakes, M. A., & Hoffman, H. G. (2003). Targets of discrimination:
Effects of race on responses to weapons holders. Journal Of Experimental
Social Psychology, 39(4), 399-405.
Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-
analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit
self-report measure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369–
1385.
Iyengar, S., Messing, S., Bailenson, J., & Hahn, K. S. (2010). Do Explicit Racial Cues
Influence Candidate Preference? The Case of Skin Complexion in the 2008
Campaign. In Annual Meeting of the APSA, Washington.
Johnson, J. D. & Lecci, L. (2003). Assessing anti-white attitudes and predicting perceived
racism: The johnson-lecci scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
29, 299-312.
Johnson, J. D., Lecci, L., & Swim, J. (2006). Predicting perceived racism and acceptance of
negative behavioral intergroup responses: Validating the JLS in a college and
community sample of Blacks. Personality And Individual Differences, 40(3),
421-431.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 36Katz, I., & Hass, R. 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.
Krysan, M., & Couper, M. P. (2003). Race in the Live and the Virtual Interview: Racial
Deference, Social Desirability, and Activation Effects in Attitude Surveys.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(4), 364-383.
Lowe, S., Okubo, Y., & Reilly, M. F. (2012). A qualitative inquiry into racism, trauma, and
coping: Implications for supporting victims of racism. Professional
Psychology: Research And Practice, 43(3), 190-198.
McConahay, J. B. (1983). Modern racism and modern discrimination: The effects of race,
racial attitudes, and context on simulated hiring decisions. Personality And
Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(4), 551-558.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J.
F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-
89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
McDaniel, M. J., Beier, M. E., Perkins, A. W., Goggin, S. & Frankel, B. (2009). An
assessment of the fakeability of self-report and implicit personality measures.
Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 682-685.
Mckenna, I. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y. & Steward, I. (2007). Testing the
fake-ability of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP): The first
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 37study. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7(2),
123-138.
Nosek, B. A., Hawkins, C. B. & Frazier, R. S. (2011). Implicit social cognition: From
measures to mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(4), 152-159.
Oliver, M., & Fonash, D. (2002). Race and crime in the news: Whites' identification and
misidentification of violent and nonviolent criminal suspects. Media
Psychology, 4(2), 137-156.
Pedregon, C. A., Farley, R. L., Davis, A., Wood, J. M., & Clark, R. D. (2012). Social
desirability, personality questionnaires, and the “better than average” effect.
Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 213-217.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J. Stallworth, L. M. & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation:
A personality variable predicting socialand political attitudes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 741-763.
Saucier, D. A. & Miller, C. T. (2003). The persuasiveness of racial arguments as a subtle
measure of racism. Society For Personality And Social Psychology, 29(10),
1303-1315).
Summers, G. F., & Hammonds, A. D. (1966). Effect of racial characteristics of
investigator on self-enumerated responses to a Negro prejudice scale. Social
Forces, 44(4), 515-518.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 38Tummala-Narra, P., Inman, A. G., & Ettigi, S. P. (2011). Asian Indians' responses to
discrimination: A mixed-method examination of identity, coping, and self-
esteem. Asian American Journal Of Psychology, 2(3), 205-218.
Yang, J., He, J. & Gu, Y. (2012). The implicit measurement of destination image: The
application of implicit association tests. Tourism Management, 33(1), 50-52.
Appendix A
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 39IRAP Instructions (Campbell, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Stewart, I.
(2011)
“Our research investigates cognitive processes that are used in decisions that involve memory. We are seeking to develop
and test theories of cognitive processes that occur inside and outside of awareness in the routine use of memory.
Stimuli will be presented on this display screen and your responses will be entered on the keyboard.
The research assumes that you can read English fluently, and that your vision is normal or corrected to normal. If you do not
consider yourself fluent in English, or if your vision is not normal or corrected to normal, and ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE
HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY READING THIS DESCRIPTION, PLEASE ask the Experimenter now whether or not you
should continue.
Your identity as a participant is confidential. Further, you are free to discontinue participation at any time, without penalty.
In keeping with standard practice, your data may be retained for 5 years or so, during which time only the investigators on
this or successor projects will have access to them.
PLEASE NOW READ THE STATEMENT BELOW, WHERE YOU WILL BE ASKED TO RESPOND TO A
STANDARD INFORMED CONSENT QUESTION. CONSENT STATEMENT
I have read the description of the procedure. I understand that the questions I may have about this research will be answered
by Professor Barnes-Holmes or one of the other researchers working on this project. If you consent to participate in the
research that has been described on the preceding display pages you should now read the Instructions for the sorting tasks
below.
[INSTRUCTION: If you wish to ask any questions first, alert the experimenter now.
IF YOU WISH NOT TO PROCEED, you should inform the experimenter].
INSTRUCTIONS
Shown below are illustrations of the four different types of task [only one illustration is presented here] that will be
presented repeatedly in this part of the experiment. To help you understand the tasks each of the four illustrations is
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 40explained immediately underneath. Please examine each illustration and then read carefully the explanation attached to it.
Please make sure that you understand each task before continuing with the experiment.
IMPORTANT: FROM TRIAL TO TRIAL THE POSITIONING OF THE RESPONSE OPTIONS (SIMILAR AND
OPPOSITE) WILL VARY RANDOMLY BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT [THIS WAS ONLY PRESENTED, AS
APPROPRIATE].”
Illustration 1
Explanation for Illustration 1
If you select “AGREE” by pressing the ‘d’ key, you are stating that the picture IS “DANGEROUS”.
If you select “DISAGREE” by pressing the ‘k’ key, you are stating that the picture IS NOT “DANGEROUS”.
“NOTE: DURING THE EXPERIMENT A RANGE OF OTHER PICTURES WILL BE PRESENTED, AS WELL AS THE
ONES USED IN THE EXAMPLES.
REMEMBER: FROM TRIAL TO TRIAL THE POSITIONING OF THE RESPONSE OPTIONS (AGREE AND
DISAGREE) WILL VARY RANDOMLY BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT [AS APPROPRIATE].
FINAL INSTRUCTIONS
“During the experiment you will be asked to respond as quickly and accurately as you can across all trials.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 41The relating tasks will be presented in short sessions that are separated by the appearance of instructions on the computer
screen. You can take a short break if you like while the instructions are on-screen.
During each short session the relating task follows one general rule. An incorrect response on any trial is signaled by the
appearance of a red ‘X’ in the center of the 1 screen. To remove the red ‘X’ and move on to the next trial, please press the
correct response key quickly.
After each session, further instructions will appear and they will tell you that the general rule that applied in the previous
session is now completely reversed. Please pay close attention to these instructions and do your best to follow them.
So, just to clarify, there will be only two general relating rules, and so the first thing you should do at the beginning of each
session is to discover the rule by using the feedback you get in the form of the red ‘X’.
It is very important to understand that sometimes you will be required to respond to the tasks in a way that agrees with what
you believe and at other times you will be required to respond in a way that disagrees with what you believe. This is part of
the experiment.
The first two sessions are for practice only and these are repeated until you respond accurately on at least 80% of the relating
trials, and respond faster, on average, than 2000 milliseconds (i.e. 2 seconds). When you complete the practice phase, the
test-phase will then start. Remember, you should try to make your responses as accurately and quickly as possible.
Good Luck. If you do not understand something about the foregoing instructions or have any further questions please talk to
the researcher before clicking on the blue button.”
Appendix B
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 42Modified Modern Racism Scale (MMRS) (McConahay, 1986)
Participant Number: ……………………………………..Please could you indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with these statements by circling a number on the scale, where 1 indicates that you strongly agree and 5 indicates you strongly disagree.
1.) Asian people should live far out in the countryside.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
2.) Asian people do not keep their homes tidy. Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
3.) Asian people do not take care of their personal hygiene.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
4.) Asian people are generally honest people.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
5.) Generally speaking, Asian people have high moral principles.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
6.) Asian people are generally not very intelligent.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
7.) I favour full integration of White British and Asian people.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
8.) Asian people hold negative attitudes toward women.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
9.) Discrimination against Asian people is no longer a problem in the UK.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
10.) There have been enough programmes designed to create jobs for Asian people.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
11.) Racist groups are no longer a threat toward Asian people.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
12.) It is easy to understand Asian people’s demands for equal rights.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
13.) Asian people get too little attention in the media.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
14.) Asian people are getting too demanding in the push for equal rights.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
15.) It is important to invest money in teaching Asian people their mother tongue.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 4316.) Special programs are needed to create jobs for Asian people.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
17.) A multicultural UK would be good.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree
Appendix C
Modified Johnson-Lecci Scale (MJLS) (Johnson & Lecci, 2003)
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 44Please could you complete the following questionnaire as honestly as you can, indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Please adopt the viewpoint of the majority of the white population in the UK. That is, please answer how you think that the majority of the white population in the UK think, feel or believe in accordance with each question.
Question Definitely Agree
Fairly Agree Fairly Disagree
Definitely Disagree
1. I believe that the majority of White people in the UK would love to return to a time in which Asian people had less civil rights.2. I believe that the majority of White people in the UK really do support the ideas and thoughts of racist political groups.3. I believe that the majority of White people in the UK really believe that Asian people are genetically inferior.4. I believe the majority of White people in the UK would discriminate against Asian people if they could get away with it.5. I believe that most of the negative actions of White people in the UK towards Asian people are due to racist feelings.6. I believe that most White people in the UK would harm Asian people if they could get away with it.7. I believe that most White people in the UK think that they are superior to Asian people.8. I believe that the majority of White people in the UK think Asian people smell.9. I think that a lot of White people in the UK have tried to destroy something created by Asian people.10. I believe that the majority of Asian people in the UK would think success of a White person is due to their skin colour.11. I consider the majority of White people in the UK to be racist toward Asian people.12. I think the majority of White people in the UK blame Asian people for their problems or for the problems of other White people.13. I think the majority of White people in the UK think negatively upon those involved in inter-racial relationships.14. I think the majority of White people in the UK have spoken negatively about Asian people without concern as to their feelings.15. I think the majority of White people in the UK have made racial comments.16. I think the majority of White people in the UK have insulted an Asian person.17. I think the majority of White people in the UK have made general statements about all Asian people.18. I think that the majority of White people in the UK believe that Asian people are selfish.19. I think White people have accused other White people of befriending Asian people only to appear nonracist.20. I think the majority of White people in the UK have said “Thank you” to an Asian person.21. I think the majority of White people in the UK have given an Asian person the finger.22. I think the majority of White people in the UK
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 45have demonstrated a short temper with Asian people.23. I think the majority of White people in the UK believe that Asian people are all alike.24. I think that Asian people believe White people have had an advantage just because of their skin colour.25. I think the majority of White people in the UK believe that it is very unlikely that a White person could really “like” an Asian person.26. Although many White people in the UK have befriended Asian people, I think they still have not trusted them.27. I believe the majority of White people in the UK have used profanity against Asian people.28. I believe that most White people in the UK and the BNP have similar feelings about Asian people.29. I think the majority of White people in the UK continually use the phrase “a Paki.”30. I believe the majority of White people in the UK and the English Defence League have similar feelings.31. I believe that, despite outward appearances, most White people in the UK are racist.32. I think the majority of White people in the UK have been angry toward Asian people.33. I believe the majority of White people in the UK would sabotage an Asian person’s career because they do not want Asian people to succeed.
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 46
Appendix D
Modified Racial Experience Questionnaire (MREQ) (Campbell, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y.,
Barnes-Holmes, D., & Stewart, I. (2011)
Participant Number: ………………………………………Please could you complete this questionnaire about your experiences with Asian people, as truthfully as possible. Please put a ‘X’ next to the most suited answer.
1. Do you know any Asian people in the UK?None [ ] A few [ ] Many [ ]
2. Do you have any acquaintances who are Asian?None [ ] A few [ ] Many [ ]
3. Do you work with any Asian people?None [ ] A few [ ] Many [ ]
4. Would you say that you have had one or more close friendships with an Asian person?Yes [ ] No [ ]
5. Do many Asian people live in your neighbourhood?None [ ] A few [ ] Many [ ]
6. Would you say that your overall experiences of meeting Asian people have been positive or negative?Very Negative [ ] Negative [ ] Equally Negative and Positive [ ]Positive [ ] Very Positive [ ] Neither Negative or Positive [ ]
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 47
Appendix E
Social Dominance Orientation Questionnaire (SDO) (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth & Malle,
1994)
Participant Number: ………………
Please could you indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with these statements in relation to racial groups, by circling a number on the scale, where 1 indicates that you strongly disagree and 7 indicates you strongly agree.
1.) Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2.) It would be good if groups could be equal.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3.) In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4.) It's OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5.) Group equality should be our ideal.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6.) To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 487.) There is a need for increased social equality.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8.) If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9.) We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10.) No one group should dominate in society.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11.) It's probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12.) Inferior groups should stay in their place.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13.) Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14.) We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 4915.) We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7