Managing diversity is challenging—both for organizations and members of negatively stereotyped groups within those organizations. As a result, many organizations implement structures, such as formal diversity policies, as a way in which to reduce discrimination and increase equity. The studies in this dissertation examine two lines of research. Paper 1 and Paper 2 explore how efforts to promote diversity through the increased representation of racial minority group members may unintentionally backfire, increasing prejudice and discrimination. Paper 1 examines whether racial minority group members’ negative evaluations of other minority targets facilitates majority group members’ prejudice expression – in particular because these contexts reduce majority group members’ concerns about appearing prejudiced. Paper 2 extends the research from Paper 1 by examining whether majority group members reward minority group members who undermine minority advancement and success because doing so can reduce majority group members concerns about appearing prejudiced. A second line of research explores how people manage their memberships in negatively stereotyped groups. Paper 3 tests an intervention strategy for how one can reduce the likelihood of becoming a target of discrimination after disclosing a negatively stereotyped concealable identity.

Despite a common post-racial rhetoric that has surfaced in recent years underscoring that discrimination against minority group members no longer exists, empirical research reveals that many individuals continue to experience discrimination and that racial prejudice continues to shape racial disparities in many domains. My dissertation examined this mismatch—when people’s experiences and beliefs are inconsistent with messages that imply that racial discrimination no longer exists. The present work explores how racial group membership influences this mismatch and leads people to experience a variety outcomes. Across three experiments, results revealed that messages that imply that racism is no longer an issue led minority group members to report less belonging (Experiments 1-3), more negative affect (Experiments 1 & 2), greater vigilance to discrimination (Experiments 1 & 2), greater support for immigration policies (Experiment 1), and greater outgroup hostility (Experiment 2) compared to

racial minorities who were not exposed to messages that minimized or denied the existence of racism. Furthermore, results revealed that the perception that Whites do not understand the experiences of minority group members mediated the relationship between the message and a lower sense of belonging for racial minorities. Conversely, messages that minimized or denied the existence of racism had the opposite effect on Whites. After being exposed to a message that minimized the existence of racial discrimination against minority groups, Whites reported lower prejudice concerns and more positive emotions compared to Whites who were not exposed to a message that minimized the existence of racial discrimination. Given that messages that minimize racism are often subtle and not intended to harm members from disadvantaged groups, this research adds to an existing understanding of the same message can create disparate outcomes among racial minorities and Whites in the United States, which may ultimately have implications for intergroup relations.

Negative stereotypes are harmful not only because they can instigate prejudice and discrimination from others; they also have the power to arouse damaging fears and concerns in the minds of negatively stereotyped individuals – a phenomenon known as stereotype threat. Being worried about confirming and reinforcing negative stereotypes that could potentially apply to oneself is distracting and has far-reaching negative consequences on an individual’s cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. Given the potential for stereotypes to have such a significant negative impact, what approaches might offer protection from the harmful effects of stereotype threat? A significant amount of stereotype threat intervention research has pointed to highlighting the presence of ingroup members – or members of an important social group that one belongs to – who have the potential to both encourage and inspire improvements in performance when faced with negative stereotypes. However, very little work has investigated the conditions under which ingroup members might serve as a source of threat in contexts when negative stereotypes are salient. It is plausible that ingroup members should, under some circumstances, evoke threat when they are in a position to judge one’s actions, resulting in negative outcomes typically associated with stereotype threat effects. Three experiments investigate the role of ingroup members as a source of evaluation in stereotype threat contexts, pinning down specifically when ingroup members are more likely to serve a helpful, protective role versus a more harmful role on individuals experiencing stereotype threat. In Experiments 1 and 2, ingroup member evaluators – whether portrayed as successful role models (Experiment 1) or merely present ingroup peers (Experiment 2) – serve as a source of support and can protect performance when one’s personal abilities are the target of evaluation, but serve as a source of threat and result in destructive performance decrements when the group’s reputation is at stake (group-as-target stereotype threat contexts). Using an online vignette study design, Experiment 3 demonstrates that the threat elicited by ingroup member sources of evaluation in group-as-target stereotype threat contexts is qualitatively different from the threat elicited by outgroup member sources of evaluation, and is characterized by concerns about disappointing the ingroup member evaluator.

Awareness of implicit bias has increased dramatically over the last decade. Indeed, news articles often cite implicit bias as central to discriminatory incidents and, as one high-profile example, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted implicit bias during the second debate of the 2016 presidential campaign. This has generally been met with enthusiasm by both activists and researchers. However, the present research suggests that framing racial bias in terms of implicit bias may have some unintended harmful consequences. Specifically, I argue that biases framed as implicit may reduce Whites’ perceptions of the intent involved in instances of discrimination, which should, in turn, reduce perceptions of perpetrator blame, the severity of the discrimination, and the necessity for punishment of the perpetrator. Four experiments found support for these hypotheses. Across three studies, framing racial bias in terms of implicit bias, rather than explicit bias or providing no information about bias, reduced Whites’ perceptions of perpetrator intentionality, and perceived intentionality mediated the relationship between implicit bias framing and perpetrator blame, incident severity, and support for punishment. This pattern was identified in discriminatory incidents that were mundane, in the context of customer service (Experiment 1); that were less common and more harmful, in the context of a police shooting (Experiment 2); and in which the perpetrator expresses explicitly biased beliefs, in the context of a workplace meeting between a manager and a new employee (Experiment 3). An additional study experimentally tested the proposed mechanism of perceived intent by manipulating intent and examining the effect on the measured outcomes (Experiment 4). The present findings suggest that, in contrast to the goal of raising awareness about implicit bias, framing racial bias in terms of implicit bias can undermine perceptions of the severity of discrimination.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

During a smoking quit attempt, a single smoking lapse is highly predictive of future relapse. While several risk factors for a smoking lapse have been identified during clinical trials, a laboratory model of lapse was until recently unavailable and, therefore, it is unclear whether these characteristics also convey risk for lapse in a laboratory environment.

The primary study goal was to examine whether real-world risk factors of lapse are also predictive of smoking behavior in a laboratory model of smoking lapse.

After overnight abstinence, 77 smokers completed the McKee smoking lapse task, in which they were presented with the choice of smoking or delaying in exchange for monetary reinforcement. Primary outcome measures were the latency to initiate smoking behavior and the number of cigarettes smoked during the lapse. Several baseline measures of smoking behavior, mood, and individual traits were examined as predictive factors.

Craving to relieve the discomfort of withdrawal, withdrawal severity, and tension level were negatively predictive of latency to smoke. In contrast, average number of cigarettes smoked per day, withdrawal severity, level of nicotine dependence, craving for the positive effects of smoking, and craving to relieve the discomfort of withdrawal were positively predictive of number of cigarettes smoked.

The results suggest that real-world risk factors for smoking lapse are also predictive of smoking behavior in a laboratory model of lapse. Future studies using the McKee lapse task should account for between subject differences in the unique factors that independently predict each outcome measure.