Sincere egalitarian conviction coexists with unconscious bias that surfaces only in ambiguous decisions

Evidence

Aversive racism theory stems from the idea that as concerns about being egalitarian have increased, people are far less likely to endorse explicit expressions of bias and prejudice (Dovidio, 2001). Over time prejudice and discrimination have become subtler and sometimes occur outside of conscious awareness (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). Aversive racism theory also maintains that despite striving for egalitarian principles, many people still harbor negative feelings toward and thoughts about minority groups (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). Specifically, the theory posits that people will not express prejudice if they are aware of the potential for their actions to be perceived as discriminatory, but when they are unaware of the potential to express bias they often will act in discriminatory ways (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Pearson, Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2009; Saucier, Miller, & Doucet, 2005). … In terms of juror decisions, aversive racism theory predicts that ambiguous situations are more likely to evoke evidence of prejudice and bias against outgroup defendants than nonambiguous situations (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). For example, in one study researchers manipulated whether the prosecution introduced inadmissible information (incriminating for the defendant), which jurors were later told to disregard (Hodson, et al., 2005). When the inadmissible evidence was present, jurors were less likely to convict if the defendant was White than if the defendant was Black; however, in the absence of the inadmissible information, jurors displayed no out-group bias in their verdicts. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 862

Categorization

• XREF: Directly bears on the reader’s sincere-conviction-vs-measured-bias gap question — the mechanism here (awareness of potential discrimination suppresses bias expression) is the institutional-legal instance of that divergence. — connects to: Judicial decisions blend clear-law obedience with attitude-driven choice in ambiguous cases — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1365
• DEEPTHINKING: The specification that bias emerges only when people are unaware of the potential to be seen as discriminatory is a dense, falsifiable mechanism for professed-egalitarianism diverging from measured behavior — central load-bearing idea for the reader’s stated research.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 862