Perceptions of Falling Behind "Most White People": Within-Group Status Comparisons Predict Fewer Positive Emotions and Worse Health Over Time Among White (but Not Black) Americans.

Despite the persistence of anti-Black racism, White Americans report feeling worse off than Black Americans. We suggest that some White Americans may report low well-being despite high group-level status because of perceptions that they are falling behind their in-group. Using census-based quota sampling, we measured status comparisons and health among Black (N = 452, Wave 1) and White (N = 439, Wave 1) American adults over a period of 6 to 7 weeks. We found that Black and White Americans tended to make status comparisons within their own racial groups and that most Black participants felt better off than their racial group, whereas most White participants felt worse off than their racial group. Moreover, we found that White Americans' perceptions of falling behind "most White people" predicted fewer positive emotions at a subsequent time, which predicted worse sleep quality and depressive symptoms in the future. Subjective within-group status did not have the same consequences among Black participants.

The Relationship Between Mental Representations of Welfare Recipients and Attitudes Toward Welfare.

Scholars have argued that opposition to welfare is, in part, driven by stereotypes of African Americans. This argument assumes that when individuals think about welfare, they spontaneously think about Black recipients. We investigated people's mental representations of welfare recipients. In Studies 1 and 2, we used a perceptual task to visually estimate participants' mental representations of welfare recipients. Compared with the average non-welfare-recipient image, the average welfare-recipient image was perceived (by a separate sample) as more African American and more representative of stereotypes associated with welfare recipients and African Americans. In Study 3, participants were asked to determine whether they supported giving welfare benefits to the people pictured in the average welfare-recipient and non-welfare-recipient images generated in Study 2. Participants were less supportive of giving welfare benefits to the person shown in the welfare-recipient image than to the person shown in the non-welfare-recipient image. The results suggest that mental images of welfare recipients may bias attitudes toward welfare policies.

Racialized Sexism: Nonverbal Displays of Power in Workplace Settings are Evaluated as More Masculine When Displayed by White (vs. Black) Women With Implications for the Expression of Ambivalent Sexism.

We hypothesized that White (vs. Black) women in high- (vs. low-) power poses would be evaluated as particularly masculine and unfeminine due to greater perceived violations of gendered racial stereotypes. As predicted, White (vs. Black) women in high- (but not low-) power poses were evaluated as more masculine and less feminine (Studies 1-3). Moreover, greater perceived masculinity of White (vs. Black) women in high-power poses predicted more hostile sexism; and, lesser perceived femininity of White (vs. Black) women predicted less benevolent sexism. Finally, these associations between masculinity/hostile sexism and femininity/benevolent sexism serially mediated reduced hiring desirability of White (vs. Black) women (Study 2). Study 3 replicated these serial indirect effects and found that these effects emerged regardless of job status and even when controlling for socially desirable responding. We conclude that gendered racism leads sexism to be expressed toward White and Black women embodying power in distinct ways.

Beliefs That White People Are Poor, Above and Beyond Beliefs That Black People Are Poor, Predict White (But Not Black) Americans' Attitudes Toward Welfare Recipients and Policy.

In past work, White Americans' beliefs about Black poverty have predicted lower perceived work ethic of the poor, and, thus, less welfare support. In this article, we examine whether beliefs about White poverty predict more positive attributions about the poor among three representative samples of White Americans. Study 1 reveals that White (but not Black) Americans' White-poor beliefs predict increased perceptions that welfare recipients are hardworking, which predict more welfare support. Study 2 demonstrates that the link between White Americans' White-poor beliefs and the humanization of welfare recipients is stronger among White Americans who feel intergroup status threat (i.e., those who hold racial zero-sum beliefs). Study 3 replicates and extends Study 2 by using an experimental approach. Together, these data suggest that White Americans' White-poor beliefs function to humanize welfare recipients as a means to justify policies that could help the ingroup, preserving the racial status quo.

The policy implications of feeling relatively low versus high status within a privileged group.

Research suggests that White Americans oppose welfare due to between-group processes: Many White Americans envision welfare recipients to be lazy, undeserving, and Black, and these perceptions predict reduced welfare support. In the present work, we consider the role of within-group processes that result from complementary beliefs that White people, as a group, are wealthy. Using a nationally representative sample of White and Black Americans (Study 1) and two large samples of White Americans (Study 2 and Study 3; N = 2,000), we find that many White Americans feel relatively lower status than their racial group. Furthermore, these perceived within-group status disparities are associated with reduced stereotyping of welfare recipients as lazy, which mediates greater policy support. Finally, we demonstrate that leading White Americans to take ownership of their racial privilege can increase perceptions of within-group status. And these shifts in within-group status have downstream consequences for attitudes toward welfare recipients and policies (replicating our previous two studies). We conclude that consideration of both between-group and within-group processes may provide a fuller understanding of how group-level privilege shapes White Americans' support (or lack thereof) for hierarchy-attenuating policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Math and language gender stereotypes: Age and gender differences in implicit biases and explicit beliefs.

In a cross-sectional study of youth ages 8-15, we examined implicit and explicit gender stereotypes regarding math and language abilities. We investigated how implicit and explicit stereotypes differ across age and gender groups and whether they are consistent with cultural stereotypes. Participants (N = 270) completed the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP) and a survey of explicit beliefs. Across all ages, boys showed neither math nor language implicit gender biases, whereas girls implicitly favored girls in both domains. These findings are counter to cultural stereotypes, which favor boys in math. On the explicit measure, both boys' and girls' primary tendency was to favor girls in math and language ability, with the exception of elementary school boys, who rated genders equally. We conclude that objective gender differences in academic success guide differences in children's explicit reports and implicit biases.

Colorectal neoplasia screening before age 50?: current epidemiologic trends in the United States.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer screening has decreased mortality through early disease detection. In 1995, the United States Preventative Services Task Force recommended commencing screening at age 50 for average-risk people. We assessed trends in colorectal resection for neoplasia in the interval following these recommendations. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried to identify patient discharges for colorectal resection of neoplastic disease, 1998-2005. Univariate analyses were performed using Rao-Scott chi-squared tests and survey-weighted analysis of variance. Trends were analyzed by the Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test. RESULTS: There were 212,389 patient discharges following resection for colorectal neoplasia. The number of resections for each age group were as follows: less than 50 years ranged from 11.8 to 13.3 percent, around 12.5 percent for ages 50 to 70 years, and 13.5 to 11.6 percent for ages greater than 70, with overall P < 0.0001. In-hospital mortality was 0.6 percent for patients aged less than 50 years, 1.5 percent for those aged 50 to 70 years, and 4.6 percent for those aged greater than 70 years. Right colectomy was the most common procedure among all age groups (42.5 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Although the national incidence of colorectal cancer has been fairly stable, the increase in colorectal resection for neoplasia in patients less than age 50, combined with their low in-hospital mortality rate, strengthens the argument for screening before age 50. The predominance of right-sided procedures supports the use of full colonoscopy as the primary screening method.

Personal Prejudice, Other Guilt: Explicit Prejudice Toward Black People Predicts Guilty Verdicts for White Officers Who Kill Black Men.

Across the United States, acquittals of White police officers who have killed Black men have spurred clashes between those who see such situations as manifestations of racism and those who see them as race-irrelevant acts of officer self-defense. In this research, we explore the relationship between participants' racial prejudice and construal of an event that leads to the death of a Black man. In Study 1, we found that participants' racial prejudice predicts lower perceived guilt for a White officer who killed a Black man. In Study 2, we found evidence that the relationship between racial prejudice and guilt judgments is driven by increased perceptions that the officer was in danger and decreased perceived relevance of officer prejudice. Finally, Study 3 demonstrated that these patterns hold when the victim is Black, but not White. We conclude that racial prejudice shapes perceptions of legal responsibility for lethal interactions with Black men.

Complex intersections of race and class: Among social liberals, learning about White privilege reduces sympathy, increases blame, and decreases external attributions for White people struggling with poverty.

White privilege lessons are sometimes used to increase awareness of racism. However, little research has investigated the consequences of these lessons. Across 2 studies (N = 1,189), we hypothesized that White privilege lessons may both highlight structural privilege based on race, and simultaneously decrease sympathy for other challenges some White people endure (e.g., poverty)-especially among social liberals who may be particularly receptive to structural explanations of inequality. Indeed, both studies revealed that while social liberals were overall more sympathetic to poor people than social conservatives, reading about White privilege decreased their sympathy for a poor White (vs. Black) person. Moreover, these shifts in sympathy were associated with greater punishment/blame and fewer external attributions for a poor White person's plight. We conclude that, among social liberals, White privilege lessons may increase beliefs that poor White people have failed to take advantage of their racial privilege-leading to negative social evaluations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The Mixed Outcomes of Taking Ownership for Implicit Racial Biases.

One potential strategy for prejudice reduction is encouraging people to acknowledge, and take ownership for, their implicit biases. Across two studies, we explore how taking ownership for implicit racial bias affects the subsequent expression of overt bias. Participants first completed an implicit measure of their attitudes toward Black people. Then we either led participants to think of their implicit bias as their own or as stemming from external factors. Results revealed that taking ownership for high implicit racial bias had diverging effects on subsequent warmth toward Black people (Study 1) and donations to a Black nonprofit (Study 2) based on people's internal motivations to respond without prejudice (Internal Motivation Scale [IMS]). Critically, among those low in IMS, owning high implicit bias backfired, leading to greater overt prejudice and smaller donations. We conclude that taking ownership of implicit bias has mixed outcomes-at times amplifying the expression of explicit prejudice.

Using Groups to Measure Intergroup Prejudice.

Implicit measures of racial attitudes often assess reactions to images of individuals to infer attitudes toward an entire social category. However, an increasing amount of research indicates that responses to individuals are highly dependent on context and idiosyncratic features of individual exemplars. Thus, using images of individuals to assess beliefs about a whole social category may not be ideal. Across three time points, we predicted that using images of groups would mitigate the influence of idiosyncratic features of individual targets and, thus, provide a better measurement tool to assess beliefs about a category to which all group members belong. Results revealed that an implicit measure that presented images of Black and White groups had greater construct validity, test-retest reliability, and predictive validity as compared with an implicit measure that presented the same exemplars individually. We conclude that groups provide a window into existing beliefs about social categories.

The paradox of group mind: "People in a group" have more mind than "a group of people".

Three studies examine how subtle shifts in framing can alter the mind perception of groups. Study 1 finds that people generally perceive groups to have less mind than individuals. However, Study 2 demonstrates that changing the framing of a group from "a group of people" to "people in a group," substantially increases mind perception-leading to comparable levels of mind between groups and individuals. Study 3 reveals that this change in framing influences people's sympathy for groups, an effect mediated by mind perception. We conclude that minor linguistic shifts can have big effects on how groups are perceived-with implications for mind perception and sympathy for mass suffering. (PsycINFO Database Record

Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time.

Implicit preferences are malleable, but does that change last? We tested 9 interventions (8 real and 1 sham) to reduce implicit racial preferences over time. In 2 studies with a total of 6,321 participants, all 9 interventions immediately reduced implicit preferences. However, none were effective after a delay of several hours to several days. We also found that these interventions did not change explicit racial preferences and were not reliably moderated by motivations to respond without prejudice. Short-term malleability in implicit preferences does not necessarily lead to long-term change, raising new questions about the flexibility and stability of implicit preferences. (PsycINFO Database Record

Who owns implicit attitudes? Testing a metacognitive perspective.

Metacognitive inferences about ownership for one's implicit attitudes have the power to turn implicit bias into explicit prejudice. In Study 1, participants were assigned to construe their implicit attitudes toward gay men as belonging to themselves (owned) or as unrelated to the self (disowned). Construing one's implicit responses as owned led to greater implicit-explicit attitude correspondence. In Study 2, we measured ownership for implicit attitudes as well as self-esteem. We predicted that ownership inferences would dictate explicit attitudes to the degree that people had positive views of the self. Indeed, higher ownership for implicit bias was associated with greater implicit-explicit attitude correspondence, and this effect was driven by participants high in self-esteem. Finally, in Study 3, we manipulated inferences of ownership and measured self-esteem. Metacognitions of ownership affected implicit-explicit attitude correspondence but only among those with relatively high self-esteem. We conclude that subjective inferences about implicit bias affect explicit prejudice.

Intention invention and the affect misattribution procedure: reply to Bar-Anan and Nosek (2012).

A recent study of the affect misattribution procedure (AMP) found that participants who retrospectively reported that they intentionally rated the primes showed larger effect sizes and higher reliability. The study concluded that the AMP's validity depends on intentionally rating the primes. We evaluated this conclusion in three experiments. First, larger effect sizes and higher reliability were associated with (incoherent) retrospective reports of both (a) intentionally rating the primes and (b) being unintentionally influenced by the primes. A second experiment manipulated intentions to rate the primes versus targets and found that this manipulation produced systematically different effects. Experiment 3 found that giving participants an option to "pass" when they felt they were influenced by primes did not reduce priming. Experimental manipulations, rather than retrospective self-reports, suggested that participants make post hoc confabulations to explain their responses. There was no evidence that validity in the AMP depends on intentionally rating primes.

Glowing in the dark: time of day as a determinant of radiographic imaging in the evaluation of abdominal pain in children.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Although ultrasound is often the preferred pediatric imaging study, many institutions lack ultrasound access at night; and computerized tomography (CT) becomes the only radiological method available for evaluation of appendicitis in children. The purpose of this study was to characterize patterns of daytime and nighttime use of ultrasound or CT for evaluation of pediatric appendicitis and to measure consequent differences in radiation exposure and cost. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients evaluated for appendicitis from October 2004 to October 2009 (N = 535) was performed to evaluate daytime and nighttime use of ultrasound and CT for pediatric patients. RESULTS: Average age was 10.2 years (range, 3-17 years). During the day, 6 times as many ultrasounds were performed as CTs (230 vs 35). At night, half as many ultrasounds were performed (50 vs 110). Average radiation dose per child during the day was significantly lower than at night (day, 0.52 mSv per patient; night, 2.75 mSv per patient). Average radiology costs were lower for daytime patients ($2491.06 day vs $4045.00 night; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Dependence on CT at night results in higher average radiation exposure and cost. Twenty-four-hour ultrasound availability would decrease radiation exposure and cost of evaluation of children presenting with appendicitis.