Black Americans suppress emotions when prejudice is believed to stem from shared ignorance.

Past research examining lay theories of the origins of prejudice has focused on white Americans and has not considered how Black Americans' lay theories of prejudice may impact emotion regulation following discrimination. Across three samples of Black Americans (N = 419), the present research examined relationships between endorsement of two lay theories of prejudice origins (1, beliefs that prejudice stems from shared social ignorance and 2, that prejudice stems from malice). Stronger beliefs that prejudice stems from shared ignorance were associated with greater expression suppression following experiences of racial discrimination (studies 1b and 2), which was, in turn, associated with psychological distress (study 2). By centering the beliefs and experiences of Black Americans in response to discrimination events, the present research has implications for understanding how emotion regulation following racial discrimination is impacted by marginalized groups' conceptualizations of prejudice. Future research should investigate how these factors impact health disparities.

Factors that contribute to accurately perceiving anti-black racism and sexism overlap.

Past research demonstrates that prejudice toward women and Black Americans often co-occur in individuals. The present studies examine factors related to accuracy in estimating the co-occurrence, or overlap, of prejudice toward women and Black Americans. Across two studies, criterion overlap percentages were computed using national datasets and separate participant samples estimated prejudice overlap. Results indicate that beliefs about the generalized nature of prejudice can improve accuracy by reducing faulty underestimation of the overlap in anti-Black racism and sexism. In addition to greater displayed accuracy in perceptions of prototypical perpetrators of prejudice (i.e., estimates of White men compared to White women), the present work suggests that accuracy is improved when estimating sexist attitudes from racist attitudes, rather than vice versa. Together, this work documents the accuracy of prejudice overlap perceptions, for the first time, and factors that facilitate accuracy (i.e., perpetrator prototypicality, known prejudicial attitude), with implications for intergroup dynamics research.

Do Beliefs That Older Adults Are Inflexible Serve as a Barrier to Racial Equality?

Past research has demonstrated that older adults are stereotyped as less malleable than young adults. Moreover, beliefs that people are less malleable are associated with lower confrontations of prejudice, as perpetrators are seen as less capable of changing their (prejudiced) behavior. The present research sought to integrate these lines of research to demonstrate that endorsement of ageist beliefs that older adults are less malleable will lead to a lower confrontation of anti-Black prejudice espoused by older adults. Across four experimental studies (N = 1,573), people were less likely to confront anti-Black prejudice espoused by an 82-year-old compared with a 62-, 42-, or 20-year-old, due, in part, to beliefs that older adults are less malleable. Further exploration demonstrated that malleability beliefs about older adults were held across young, middle-aged, and older adult samples. These findings demonstrate how stereotypes about older adults can impede racial equality.

Theory of Prejudice and American Identity Threat Transfer for Latino and Asian Americans.

Latinos and Asian Americans confront similar stereotypes as they are often presumed to be foreigners and subjected to American identity denial. Across six studies (total N = 992), we demonstrate that Latinos and Asians anticipate ingroup prejudice and specific types of subordination (e.g., American identity threat) in the face of outgroup threats that target one another (i.e., stigma transfer). The studies explore whether stigma transfer occurred primarily when shared Latino and Asian stereotype content was a salient component of the prejudice remark (e.g., foreigner stereotypes; Study 3), or when outgroup prejudice targeted a social group with shared stereotype content (Study 4), though neither appeared to substantively moderate stigma transfer. Minority group members who conceptualize prejudiced people as holding multiple biases (i.e., a monolithic prejudice theory) were more susceptible to stigma transfer suggesting that stereotype content is not necessary for stigma transfer because people assume that prejudice is not singular.

The Endurance of Interpersonal Confrontations as a Prejudice Reduction Strategy.

Previous work has found that individuals who have been confronted for discrimination demonstrate a reduction in explicit prejudice and use fewer stereotypes immediately after the confrontation. Although confronting prejudice has been touted as a tool for prejudice reduction, it is not known how these effects translate over time and what processes might account for their endurance. Across two studies, the present research finds that individuals used significantly fewer negative stereotypes 7 days after confrontation (Study 1) and engaged in behavioral inhibition to stereotypical cues on a probe task 1 week after confrontation. Moreover, guilt and prolonged rumination mediated these effects for confronted participants (Studies 1 and 2). Across two studies, the present studies reveal the lasting effects of interpersonal confrontations in prejudice reduction and the process by which these effects endure.

Stigma by Prejudice Transfer: Racism Threatens White Women and Sexism Threatens Men of Color.

In the current research, we posited the stigma-by-prejudice-transfer effect, which proposes that stigmatized group members (e.g., White women) are threatened by prejudice that is directed at other stigmatized group members (e.g., African Americans) because they believe that prejudice has monolithic qualities. While most stigma researchers assume that there is a direct correspondence between the attitude of prejudiced individuals and the targets (i.e., sexism affects women, racism affects racial minorities), the five studies reported here demonstrate that White women can be threatened by racism (Study 1, 3, 4, and 5) and men of color by sexism (Study 2). Robust to perceptions of liking and the order in which measures were administered, results showed that prejudice transfers between racism and sexism were driven by the presumed social dominance orientation of the prejudiced individual. In addition, important downstream consequences, such as the increased likelihood of anticipated stigma, expectations of unfair treatment, and the attribution of negative feedback to sexism, appeared for stigmatized individuals.

Organizational Identity Safety Cue Transfers.

Traditionally, researchers have focused on identity-congruent safety cues such as the effect of gender diversity awards on women's sense of inclusion in organizations. The present studies investigate, for the first time, whether identity safety cues (e.g., organizational diversity structures) aimed at one stigmatized group transfer via perceptions of the organization's ideology (social dominance orientation), resulting in identity safety for individuals with stigmatized identities incongruent with the cue. Across four studies, we demonstrate that White women experience identity safety from organizational diversity structures aimed at racial minorities (Studies 1 and 2), and men of color experience identity safety from organizational diversity structures aimed at women (Study 3). Furthermore, while White men similarly perceive the organization's ideology, this does not promote identity safety (Study 4). Thus, we argue that individuals view organizations commended for diversity as promoting more egalitarian attitudes broadly, resulting in the transference of identity safety cues for stigmatized individuals.