White by Another Name? Can Anti-Christian Bias Claims Serve as a Racial Dog Whistle?

Four preregistered experiments (N = 4,307) explored whether anti-Christian bias claims can discreetly signal White allyship among Christian American adults. In Experiments 1 and 2, reading about anti-Christian bias led White, but not Black, Christians to perceive more anti-White bias. Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrate the connection between Christian and White can be leveraged by politicians in the form of a racial dog whistle. In Experiment 3, White Christians perceived a politician concerned about anti-Christian bias as caring more about anti-White bias and more willing to fight for White people (relative to a control). This politician was also perceived as less offensive than a politician concerned about anti-White bias. In Experiment 4, Black Christians perceived a politician concerned about anti-Christian bias as less offensive than one concerned about anti-White bias yet still unlikely to fight for Black people. Results suggest "anti-Christian bias" can provide a relatively palatable way to signal allegiance to White people.

Anti-Black attitudes predict decreased concern about COVID-19 among Whites in the U.S. and Brazil.

RATIONALE: From the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials and news organizations reported pervasive racial disparities in the infection, morbidity, and mortality of the virus. In both the U.S. and Brazil, Black, Native, and mixed-race individuals were more negatively impacted by COVID-19 than White people. Simultaneously, significant social factions downplayed the threat and insisted on living "normally". We examined how these two factors coexisted. OBJECTIVE: We sought to establish whether Whites' anti-Black attitudes predicted their concern about the pandemic and tendency to behave in ways that exacerbated the pandemic. METHODS: and Results: In five studies, conducted in two countries (total N = 3425), we found that anti-Black attitudes (above and beyond political orientation, White racial identification, and perceptions of racial disparities) were associated with less concern about COVID-19, lower adoption of health and social distancing behaviors, and greater interest in returning to normalcy. DISCUSSION: We discuss how efforts to combat anti-Blackness may improve the health of the general population.

The Pandemic as a Portal: Reimagining Psychological Science as Truly Open and Inclusive.

Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this article, we call on psychological scientists-focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context for such conversations-to begin reimagining our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss whom our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.

Is LGBT progress seen as an attack on Christians?: Examining Christian/sexual orientation zero-sum beliefs.

As social policies have changed to grant more rights to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals, some Christians in the United States have suggested that LGBT rights impede Christians' religious freedom. Across five studies, we examined the causes and consequences of zero-sum beliefs (ZSBs) about Christians and LGBT individuals. We demonstrate that Christians' beliefs about conflict with sexual minorities are shaped by their understandings of Christian values, social change, interpretation of the Bible, and in response to religious institutions. In Study 1, heterosexual cisgender Christians endorsed ZSBs more than other groups. Christians reported perceiving that anti-LGBT bias has decreased over time while anti-Christian bias has correspondingly increased. In Study 2, Christians' zero-sum beliefs increased after they reflected on religious values, suggesting that intergroup conflict is seen as being a function of Christian beliefs. Study 3 confirmed the role of symbolic threat in driving ZSBs; perceived conflict was accentuated when Christians read about a changing cultural climate in which Christians' influence is waning. An intervention using Biblical scripture to encourage acceptance successfully lowered zero-sum beliefs for mainline but not fundamentalist Christians (Study 4). A final field study examined how ZSBs predict sexual prejudice in response to changing group norms. After a special conference in which the United Methodist Church voted to restrict LGBT people from marriage and serving as clergy, zero-sum beliefs became a stronger predictor of sexual prejudice (Study 5). We discuss the implications of Christian/LGBT ZSBs for religious freedom legislation, attitudes toward sexual minorities, and intergroup conflict more generally. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Appropriated racial oppression: Implications for mental health in Whites and Blacks.

Racism has been examined in its many forms. Scholarship regarding how individuals personally experience, cope with, and manage racial oppression is still developing. The term "appropriated racial oppression" reframes the construct "internalized racism" as a process whereby members of a group appropriate a dominant group's ideology, adapt their behavior, and perceive a subordinate status as deserved, natural, and inevitable. The expression of appropriated racial oppression is based on a variety of complicated and interacting processes, such as incentivized societal norms, critical consciousness, and racial socialization. We conceptualize appropriated racial oppression as a mediated process that yields both direct and indirect health outcomes for both non-dominant and dominant groups. The latter is critical because little research examines how racism affects dominant groups and their health. In this commentary, we examine two examples where appropriating racial oppression may confer both negative and adaptive outcomes. Although we highlight examples rooted in White and Black racial experiences, we briefly consider implications for intersectional and multiple marginalized identities as well. Future research recommendations for psychology, public health and interdisciplinary research are discussed.

Conflicting Motivations: Understanding How Low-Status Group Members Respond to Ingroup Discrimination Claimants.

Previous research has found that among low-status individuals, both group identification (GID) and status-legitimizing beliefs (SLBs) motivate varying responses to ingroup discrimination claimants. SLBs are traditionally thought to motivate decreased support for low-status claimants, while GID is thought to motivate increased liking and support of ingroup members. The current research examines these conflicting influences on ingroup claimants among women (Studies 1a and 1b) and Latino/as (Studies 2 and 3). We find that when SLBs are strongly endorsed (Studies 1a, 1b, and 2) or primed (Study 3), GID does not predict liking or support for a claimant. Only when SLB endorsement is low and identity safety cues are absent does GID predict liking and support for a claimant. Our results suggest that when motivations conflict, SLBs seem to more strongly predict reactions to ingroup claimants.

Priming status-legitimizing beliefs: Examining the impact on perceived anti-White bias, zero-sum beliefs, and support for Affirmative Action among White people.

The current research examines how status-legitimizing beliefs (SLBs) influence White people's perceptions of anti-White bias, endorsement of zero-sum beliefs, and support for Affirmative Action. We suggest that SLBs perpetuate inequality by increasing White people's perceptions of zero-sum beliefs and anti-White bias, which in turn lead to decreased support for Affirmative Action. White individuals primed with SLBs perceived greater anti-White bias, endorsed greater zero-sum beliefs, and indicated less support for Affirmative Action than individuals primed with neutral content. Mediation analysis revealed that the SLB prime decreased support for Affirmative Action by increasing perceptions of anti-White bias. This research offers experimental evidence that SLBs contribute to White people's perceptions of anti-White bias and to decreased support for Affirmative Action.

Racial progress as threat to the status hierarchy: implications for perceptions of anti-White bias.

In three studies, we examined how racial progress affects Whites' perceptions of anti-White bias. When racial progress was chronically (Study 1) and experimentally (Study 2) salient, Whites who believed the current U.S. status hierarchy was legitimate were more likely to report that Whites were victims of racial discrimination. In contrast, Whites who perceived the current status system as illegitimate were unaffected by the salience of racial progress. The results of Study 3 point to the role of threat in explaining these divergent reactions to racial progress. When self-affirmed, Whites who perceived the status hierarchy as legitimate no longer showed increased perceptions of anti-White bias when confronted with evidence of racial progress. Implications for policies designed to remedy social inequality are discussed.

Being mixed: who claims a biracial identity?

What factors determine whether mixed-race individuals claim a biracial identity or a monoracial identity? Two studies examine how two status-related factors-race and social class-influence identity choice. While a majority of mixed-race participants identified as biracial in both studies, those who were members of groups with higher status in American society were more likely than those who were members of groups with lower status to claim a biracial identity. Specifically, (a) Asian/White individuals were more likely than Black/White or Latino/White individuals to identify as biracial and (b) mixed-race people from middle-class backgrounds were more likely than those from working-class backgrounds to identify as biracial. These results suggest that claiming a biracial identity is a choice that is more available to those with higher status.

Racial stereotypes and interracial attraction: phenotypic prototypicality and perceived attractiveness of Asians.

What does it take to find a member of a different race attractive? In this research, we suggest that for Whites, attraction to Asians may be based, in part, on stereotypes and variations in Asians' racial appearance. Study 1 reveals that Asians are stereotyped as being more feminine and less masculine than other racial groups-characteristics considered appealing for women but not for men to possess. Study 2 examines how variation in racial appearance, phenotypic prototypicality (PP), shapes the degree to which Asians are gender stereotyped and how PP relates to perceptions of attractiveness. Higher PP Asian men are perceived as being less masculine and less physically attractive than lower PP Asian men. These findings inform theory on how within-group variation in racial appearance affects stereotyping and other social outcomes.