Affiliation:
1. Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
2. Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155
Abstract
All human groups are equally human, but are they automatically represented as such? Harnessing data from 61,377 participants across 13 experiments (six primary and seven supplemental), a sharp dissociation between implicit and explicit measures emerged. Despite explicitly affirming the equal humanity of all racial/ethnic groups, White participants consistently associated Human (relative to Animal) more with White than Black, Hispanic, and Asian groups on Implicit Association Tests (IATs; experiments 1–4). This effect emerged across diverse representations of Animal that varied in valence (
pets
,
farm animals
,
wild animals
, and
vermin
; experiments 1–2). Non-White participants showed no such Human=Own Group bias (e.g., Black participants on a White–Black/Human–Animal IAT). However, when the test included two outgroups (e.g., Asian participants on a White–Black/Human–Animal IAT), non-White participants displayed Human=White associations. The overall effect was largely invariant across demographic variations in age, religion, and education but did vary by political ideology and gender, with self-identified conservatives and men displaying stronger Human=White associations (experiment 3). Using a variance decomposition method, experiment 4 showed that the Human=White effect cannot be attributed to valence alone; the semantic meaning of Human and Animal accounted for a unique proportion of variance. Similarly, the effect persisted even when Human was contrasted with positive attributes (e.g., God, Gods, and Dessert; experiment 5a). Experiments 5a-b clarified the primacy of Human=White rather than Animal=Black associations. Together, these experiments document a factually erroneous but robust Human=Own Group implicit stereotype among US White participants (and globally), with suggestive evidence of its presence in other socially dominant groups.
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Reference70 articles.
1. E. Mayr Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist [Internet] (1942). https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19431601558. Accessed 3 January 2023.
2. E. Mayr, “The biological species concept” in Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory, Q. D. Wheeler, R. Meier, Eds. (A Debate Columbia University Press, 2000), pp. 17–29.
3. E. H. Erikson The concept of identity in race relations--notes and queries [Internet] (1966). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED012730. Accessed 3 January 2023.
4. Infra-humanization: The Wall of Group Differences
5. The Emotional Side of Prejudice: The Attribution of Secondary Emotions to Ingroups and Outgroups
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献