Running Head: RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 1

Exploring Implicit and Explicit Measures of Racism to Explain Perceptions of

Dangerousness

By

Melissa Williams

Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Uk

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 2

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 3

Abstract

Racism is still a major problem in society, the measure of such attitudes can be considerably

beneficial and help to highlight social biases and prevent ethnic inequalities. The present

study uses the IRAP and explicit measures to explore racism, in particular, perceptions of

dangerousness. The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is a relatively new

measure of implicit attitudes and cognition; it has been successfully utilized as an implicit

measure of racist attitudes. The study also used a number of race based questionnaires as

explicit measures of racism. The data from the IRAP and the explicit measures were

compared. Results of the IRAP indicated that participants perceived White people to be safe

and Asian people to be dangerous when both were presented with dangerous objects. Results

of the explicit measures indicated that participants held relatively racist views towards Asian

people, but believed the majority of White people in the UK did not hold racist views towards

Asian people. Participants also had a low amount of social experiences with Asian people and

largely negative experiences. The findings suggest that individuals who had more social

experiences with Asian people were less likely to display racist attitudes and less likely to

perceive the majority of White people in the UK to be racist towards Asian people.

Individuals that did consider the British public to be racist were biased towards perceiving

White people as safe. These findings are important as they highlight a same race bias in

perceptions of dangerousness and further research on the IRAP as a measure of implicit racial

attitudes.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 4

Exploring Implicit and Explicit Measures of Racism to Explain Perceptions of

Dangerousness

Racism can have long-term effects on individuals’ psychological and physiological

health, experiences of racism can range from one off incidents to continued abuse (Lowe,

Okubo & Reilly, 2012). Racism is a serious issue in modern society, research shows that

racism is a significant determinant of health and can result in ethnic inequalities (Pascoe &

Smart Richman, 2009). The effects of racism have been linked to depression, general distress,

generalized anxiety, hyper arousal and physical violence (Carter et al., 2013).

Research into the link between racism and violence has highlighted a violent race bias

towards individuals of a different race to oneself. There is consistent research to show that

individuals are more likely to shoot at armed Black people quicker and more frequently than

at armed White people, and are more likely to make the decision not to shoot an armed White

person more quickly and more frequently than an armed Black person (Correl et al., 2011).

There is also evidence to suggest that this is not simply a lab based effect, in 2001 a Black

male called Timothy Thomas had warrants for non-violent traffic incidents. Timothy was

found by a police officer one day, and ran into a dark alleyway. The police officer entered the

alley way and shot Timothy dead. The reason the officer gave for this is that he said he

believed Timothy had a gun. (Correl et al., 2011). Similarly to this, a study by Greenwald,

Oakes, Hunter and Hoffman (2002) found that individuals were more likely to shoot unarmed

Black people than unarmed White people. They concluded that the race of an individual can

affect one’s ability to discriminate between a mundane object and a weapon and can produce

a bias to respond as though a weapon is present when the subject is Black. These findings are

significant as they indicate that White people are more likely to perceive Black people as

violent, than individuals of their own race.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 5Similarly, a study was conducted on White participants who read a variety of

newspaper crime briefs that consisted of both violent and non-violent crime stories featuring

pictures of either Black or White individuals. Following this, participants were asked to

identify the suspects featured in the news articles, results found that misidentification of

Black individuals featuring in the violent crime stories was higher than for White individuals

(Oliver & Fonash, 2002). In relation to this, research suggests that White individuals report a

greater fear of crime amongst the presence of Black individuals compared to in the presence

of White individuals (Chiricos, Hogan & Gertz, 1997). Correl et al. (2011) suggest that

context also has an impact on behavior, and can determine whether an individual shoots

another person or not when danger is suggested. Correl et al. suggested that once danger is

activated by an initial cue, then further cues have little impact. Social Identity Theory

proposes the reason for this to be that individuals will discriminate against the out-group -

people who are in a different social group to oneself – in order to heighten one’s self-image.

The theory suggests that people will discriminate against races different to their own, seeing

other racial groups as ‘them’ and their own race as ‘us’. The hypothesis of the theory is that

individuals will attempt to find negative attributes of an out-group in order to enhance their

own self-image (Blascovich, Wyer, Swart & Kibler, 1997).

Much of the research to date considers the link between violence and Black people.

However, racism towards the Asian community has become increasingly prominent with

ideas of terror and hate linked to Asian religions such as Islam (Dalal, 2008). Studies on the

mental health of Asians have suggested a significant association between racial

discrimination and clinical symptoms such as depression (Bhui et al., 2005). Research into

Asian Indians suggests that increased exposure to White racial contexts – such as cultural and

racial environments - causes racism related stress to increase, thus suggesting that Asians

experiences of racism are a significant cause of stress for Asian Indians (Tummalla-Narra,

Inman & Ettigi, 2011). One reason for this, as suggested by Drake et al. (2010) may be due to

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 6the terrorist attack referred to as 9/11, in which many American citizens were exposed to

media information in which Muslims were depicted in a negative manner, leading to a

negative public opinion of Muslims. Such experiences may contribute to the research in

which Muslims receive negative evaluations.

The measure of racial attitudes has been described as an elusive quest by

psychologists (Saucier & Miller, 2003). Outward racism has decreased in recent years

(Dovido & Gaertner, 2000), yet racism appears to still exist but in more subtle forms in which

individuals are more hesitant to express (McConahay, 1986). There are a number of explicit

tests used to measure racism, such as the Modern Racism Scale (MMRS) (McConahay et al.,

1981), the Attitudes Toward Blacks Scale (ATB) (Brigham, 1993), the Pro-Black and Anti-

Black Attitude Questionnaire (Katz & Hass, 1988), Johnson-Lecci Scale (JLS) (Johnson &

Lecci, 2003), the Social Dominance Orientation Questionnaire (SDOQ) (Pratto, Sidanius,

Stallworth & Malle, 1994) and the Racial Experience Questionnaire (REQ) (Campbell,

Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes & Stewart, 2011). However, the Modern Racism Scale is

designed to measure more subtle forms of racism (Dovidio, 2002).

The Modern Racism Scale (MRS) was developed by McConahay (1986), its aim is to

measure the cognitive component of racial attitudes, and capture modern forms of racism.

The MRS requires participants to agree or disagree with a list of beliefs that White people

may or may not have about Black people. It then requires participants to do the same but with

a different set of ‘old-fashioned’ beliefs. The theory of the MRS is that individuals’ cognitive

belief systems are influenced by both the attitudes towards Black people and also by

historical context. A study by McConahay (1983) required participants to evaluate job

candidates with identical resumes, with a picture of either a Black or a White candidate under

contexts made to elicit negative or positive discriminations. Results found that when the

candidate was Black, the MRS was negatively correlated with hiring evaluations in the

negative context and positively correlated in the positive context. However, when the

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 7candidate for the job was White, neither context or MRS related to the participants’ hiring

evaluations. This study demonstrates how the MRS can be successful in identifying prejudice

against Black people in a modern day setting.

Another explicit test used to measure implicit racial attitudes is the Johnson-Lecci

Scale (JLS) (Johnson & Lecci, 2003). The JLS is a multi-component self-report measure

designed to examine racial attitudes of Black people towards White people. The measure

considers in-group directed stigmatization, out-group directed negative beliefs towards White

people and discriminatory expectations from White people. Results indicated that negative in-

group and out-group relations predicted higher levels of negative interpersonal relations with

White people. Evidence suggests the JLS can be used as a robust measure of anti-White

attitudes of Black people, a study measuring the validity of the JLS suggested that Black in-

group attitudes consisting of expectations of racism were a predictor of perceived racism

(Johnson, Lecci & Swim, 2006).

The Racial Experience Questionnaire (REQ) (Campbell et al., 2011) is a method of

measuring individuals’ experiences with different social groups. The REQ relates to the

contact theory, which suggests that the more an individual mixes and interacts with a

different social group then the less prejudice they become towards said group (Emerson,

Kimbro & Yancey, 2002). This theory has been applied to racism; a study by Emerson et al.

found that individuals who had social interactions with individuals of a different race were

less likely to behave in a discriminatory manner than those with non-interracial social

relations. These findings illustrate the significance of the REQ as a measure of interracial

experiences and a potential predictor of racial discrimination.

Another explicit measure, the Social Dominance Orientation Questionnaire (SDOQ)

(Pratto et al, 1994), is a method of measuring the desire for equality and inequality amongst

social groups. The SDOQ can be used to measure a large number of both political and social

ideologies that favor group-based hierarchy. The questionnaire has been found to be useful in

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 8the measure of racism; Pretto et al. found that during the war against Iraq, anti-Arab racism

correlated with SDOQ scores. These findings are significant as they demonstrate the link

between the desire for inequality and racism, indicating that the SDOQ may be a useful tool

in measuring this.

Although explicit tests can be successful in measuring racism, there are some

limitations with using self-report measures. One prominent issue with using explicit measures

such as questionnaires is that they are subject to social desirability. Early studies indicate that

individuals are more likely to endorse an item on a self-report measure that describes a

socially desirable quality than they are one that describes an undesirable quality (Edwards,

1953). Pedregon et al. (2012), expanded on these findings; they found that individuals

produced a ‘better than average’ effect when completing questionnaires, expressing a belief

that they possess more socially desirable qualities than ‘people in general’. Such research is

relevant to the present study as it involves questionnaires which some may perceive to

contain items that highlight undesirable qualities – such as racism and prejudice, which could

affect the validity of such measures as participants may be reluctant to report such qualities.

Krysan and Couper (2003) found that social context can also exert dramatic effects on

the answers individuals provide to self-report measures; for example whether the researcher

is the same race as the individual or of a different race, politeness of the researcher and mere

presence of a researcher. In relation to this, a study by Summers and Hammonds (1966)

found that undergraduates who completed an anonymous self-report questionnaire distributed

in a classroom, displayed decreased levels of racial prejudice when one of the researchers

was black than when both researchers were white. Thus suggesting the presence of a black

individual was sufficient in altering the racial prejudice expressed and suppressed negative

racial attitudes.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 9A further issue with explicit measures is suggested by Back, Schmukle and Egloff

(2009) who proposed the Behaviour Process Model of Personality. The model suggests that

questionnaires tap into pre-existing representations of self-concept and are therefore limited

in assessing implicit cognitions related to self-concept that are impulsive and beyond

awareness. Back et al. suggest this is due to individuals providing answers that comply with

pre-existing ideas of their self-concept. The model indicates that an individuals’ self-concept

can alter the answers they provide on self-report measures such as questionnaires. The model

also suggests that questionnaires are limited in their ability to measure implicit attitudes as

these attitudes may be beyond an individual’s awareness.

Implicit attitudes can be defined as “introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately

identified) traces of past experience that mediate favourable or unfavourable feeling,

thoughts, or action toward social objects” (Greenwald and Banaji, 1995). Implicit attitudes

can impact individuals’ beliefs and behaviours; a study by Amodio and Devine (2006) on

implicit race bias and its effects on behavior, found that implicit race bias was directly

associated with race-biased behavior such as race discrimination and race stereotyping. It is

believed that individuals are often unaware of their own implicit beliefs and attitudes and

how they can develop into actions or judgments (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2006). The most

prominent measure of implicit attitudes is the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald,

McGhee & Schwartz, 1998). Implicit attitudes can come in the form of racism, measuring

such attitudes can provide a more accurate measure of racism than measuring explicit

attitudes.

A study comparing implicit and explicit measures of racial attitudes found that

participants who scored high on explicit measures of racism did not discriminate on

complexion (eg. White, Hispanic, African American), whereas participants who scored high

on implicit measures of racism did discriminate on complexion (Iyengar, Messing, Bailenson

& Hahn, 2010).This study suggests that implicit measures of racism are a more accurate way

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 10of measuring racism as individuals racial attitudes were more pronounced when using

implicit measures, rather than explicit measures in which individuals had the opportunity to

consider their answers and therefore their discriminative racial attitudes were less

pronounced. Another benefit of using implicit measures rather than explicit measures such as

self-reports is that implicit measures assess mental content in an indirect manner, the

response received from the participant during the procedure is used to assess mental content

rather than the individual providing their own ideas about their mental content (Nosek,

Hawkins & Frazier, 2011). This is important as individuals do not have chance to think about

their response or their answer during the implicit measure procedure, meaning their own

beliefs and ideas do not affect their response, thus providing a more accurate assessment of

the individuals mental content. Similarly, Nosek et al. suggest that there are a number of

factors which limit the validity of introspectively derived explicit measures. These factors

include: limits in peoples motivation to report mental content they are aware of, limits in their

opportunity to report such mental content and limits in their ability – individuals may not be

able to access such mental content through introspection. Nosek et al. argue that by using

implicit measures, all of these limitations are addressed.

Implicit measures can be an accurate tool in measuring implicit attitudes towards

racism. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a widely used method in measuring implicit

attitudes (Yang, He & Gu, 2012). Its’ theory relies on the idea that individuals associate

words with an object or picture more quickly if one has associated it in memory than if an

individual is asked to associate a word with an object that they have not previously

associated. The IAT has been used to measure implicit attitudes towards racism; research

indicated that individuals were more likely to associate positive words with White people

more likely to associate negative words with Black people (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2006).

Although the IAT can be used to measure implicit attitudes, there are other implicit

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 11measuring techniques that some view to have benefits over the IAT (Mckenna, Barnes-

Holmes, Barnes-Holmes & Stewart, 2007).

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is another method of

measuring implicit attitudes; the IRAP is a computer-based task that requires participants to

match stimuli in a way that is consistent and inconsistent with the beliefs and attitudes

thought to be representative of their social group. Participants are required to complete the

task quickly and accurately. The theory of the IRAP is that the time it takes for an individual

to provide an answer will be quicker for items and relations one has already considered than

items one has not (Cunningham, Preacher, & Banaji, 2001). The IRAP has been found to

have benefits over the IAT test. The main limitation of the IAT is that although the IAT

recognizes an association between and object and a word, it does not demonstrate how the

items are associated. However, the IRAP uses relational terms (eg. SIMILAR, OPPOSITE,

BETTER, WORSE) so that such associations can be measured. A study on the fakeability of

the IRAP was conducted, which suggested that the IRAP cannot be readily faked (Mckenna

et al., 2007) unlike the IAT test (McDaniel et al., 2009).

The IRAP is effective in highlighting potential social biases that individuals may

possess such as racism. The IRAP has been shown to be a successful measure of implicit

attitudes towards race as it makes deception extremely difficult; therefore it is difficult for

individuals to hide such attitudes (Drake, Kellum & Wilson, 2010). A study by Drake et al.

(2010) was conducted on 67 students using the IRAP to measure race and religion. Results

showed that participants were more likely to attribute positive evaluations to the word

“Christian” and negative evaluations to the word “Muslim”. Drake et al. attributed these

results to the 9/11 bombings, which resulted in a negative public opinion of Muslims.

Similarly, a study by Campbell et al. (2011) examined the use of the IRAP as a measure of

implicit attitudes towards race, between White participants and Black people. The study

suggested that in the context of mundane objects there was a pro-White and pro-Black bias

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 12towards seeing these groups as safe. However, when a dangerous object was introduced,

Black people were seen as both safe and dangerous. These results indicate an in-group bias,

as participants found it more difficult to acknowledge members of their own race and social

group as ever being dangerous, in comparison to a different social group - Black people. This

research not only demonstrates the ability of the IRAP as a race measure, but also suggests

that further research on the link between race bias and dangerous objects could be beneficial.

There is consistent research suggesting that individuals perceive other races to be

more violent than their own (Correl et al., 2011; Oliver & Fonash, 2002; Chiricos et al.,

1997). However much of the research to date focuses on racist attitudes towards Black

people, there is limited research considering implicit racist attitudes towards Asian people

from White people. The current study aims to explore both implicit and explicit measures of

racism to explain perceptions of dangerousness, and compare the differences between these

measures. The explicit measures used in this study will be the modified Modern Racism

Scale (MMRS) (McConahay, 1986), modified Johnson-Lecci Scale (MJLS) (Johnson &

Lecci, 2003), the modified Racial Experience Questionnaire (MREQ) (Campbell et al., 2011)

and the modified Social Dominance Orientation Questionnaire (MSDOQ) (Pratto et al.,1994);

the implicit measure used will be the IRAP. It is predicted that the IRAP will provide a more

accurate measure of racist attitudes than the explicit measures. The first stage of the study

will involve participants completing the explicit measures; the second part of the study will

involve participants completing the IRAP. The IRAP will contain pictures of both an Asian

male and a white male holding the same variety of dangerous objects.

Racism is still a significant problem in society, the measure of such attitudes can help

to highlight social opinion and prevent ethnic inequalities. The present study will use the

IRAP to explore racism, in particular, perceptions of dangerousness. Following this,

participants will then be asked to complete 4 questionnaires; these will be used as explicit

measures of racism. Results from the implicit and explicit measures will be compared.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 13

Method

The IRAP raises a number of questions for behavior psychologists regarding its’

experimental features. Some of these questions include whether the use of ‘d’ and ‘k’ key

presses are the most competent way of facilitating an IRAP response. Other questions raised

consider whether it would be more beneficial to include sample stimuli at the top center of

the IRAP screen rather than in each corner of the screen. An integral feature of the IRAP, and

many implicit measures, is that participants are not provided with adequate time to consider

and make conscious responses. As a result of this, features of the IRAP such as the

presentation of the stimulus are important to participants. As these features are so significant

to the measure, all trials within the IRAP are presented in the same format. The study aims to

explore perceptions of dangerousness in Asian and White people using both implicit

measures (IRAP) and explicit measures (a variety of race based questionnaires).

Participants

A total number of thirty four white individuals took part in the study, participants

were aged between 18-25 years old (M: 21 and 8 months), recruited via online social

networks (e.g. Facebook) and Edge Hill University notice boards. All participants

demonstrated high levels of English fluency and had normal or corrected to normal vision.

The participants had no prior experience of completing an IRAP and there was no incentive

for their participation in the study. Three of the participants were excluded from the study as

their mean responses were below 80% accuracy; one participant was excluded from the study

as their mean response latency was above 2000 milliseconds.

Settings

The study was conducted in a quiet room free of distraction. During the completion of

the study only the researcher and the participant were present in the room and the task was

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 14completed on an individual basis. The researcher interacted verbally during instructional

phases of the study but not during test phases.

Apparatus and Materials

The experiment consisted of two basic sets of materials, the explicit measures and the

implicit measures. The explicit measures, consisted of four likert scale questionnaires

including the modified Modern Racism Scale (MMRS) (McConahay, 1986), modified

Johnson-Lecci Scale (MJLS) (Johnson & Lecci, 2003), the modified Racial Experience

Questionnaire (MREQ) (Campbell et al., 2011) and the modified Social Dominance

Orientation Questionnaire (MSDOQ) (Pratto et al., 1994). The implicit measures consisted of

the IRAP.

Likert scales. The participants were provided with four likert scale questionnaires.

The modified Modern Racism Scale (MMRS) (McConahay, 1986) aims to measure the

cognitive component of racial attitudes, and capture modern and subtle forms of racism. The

MMRS scores were measured on a 5-point scale e.g. ‘Asian people should live far out in the

countryside’, to which a participant would answer between ‘Strongly Agree’ (1) to ‘Strongly

Disagree’ (5). A low number indicates racist beliefs towards Asian people, and a high number

indicated non-racist beliefs.

The modified Johnson-Lecci Scale (MJLS) (Johnson & Lecci, 2003) is designed to

examine racial attitudes of Black people towards White people. The MJLS scores were

measured on a 4-point scale, e.g. ‘I believe that the majority of White people in the UK really

believe that Asian people are genetically inferior’, to which a participant would answer

between ‘Definitely Agree’ (1) and ‘Definitely Disagree’ (4). A low number indicates a belief

that the majority of white people in the UK possess racist views towards Asian people.

The modified Racial Experience Questionnaire (MREQ) (Campbell et al., 2011) is a

method used to measure individuals’ experiences with different social groups. The MREQ

scores were measured on a 1-6 point scale, e.g. ‘Do you know any Asian people in the UK’ to

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 15which a participant would answer between ‘None’ (1) and ‘Many’ (3). ‘Would you say that

your overall experiences of meeting Asian people have been positive or negative?’, to which

a participant would answer between ‘Very Negative’ (1) and ‘Very Positive’ (6). Low

numbers indicated a low amount of social experiences with Asian people; high numbers

indicated a high amount of social experiences.

The modified Social Dominance Orientation Questionnaire (MSDOQ) (Pratto et al.,

1994), is a method of measuring the desire for equality and inequality amongst social groups.

The MSDOQ scores were measured on a 7-point scale, e.g. ‘It would be good if groups could

be equal’, to which a participant would answer between ‘Strongly Disagree’ (1) and ‘Strongly

Agree’ (7). High numbers indicated a desire for equality amongst groups; a low number

indicated a desire for group segregation.

The Irap. Participants completed the IRAP on a DELL desktop computer with a

Pentium 4 processor. The IRAP procedure was presented via a program written in Visual

Basic (Version 6.0.), the program controlled all aspects of the presentation of stimulus and

recording the participants’ responses.

The stimuli presented during the IRAP consisted of two groups of pictures, an Asian

male holding dangerous weapons (e.g. a knife) and a White male holding dangerous weapons

(e.g. a hammer). The pictures were original photographs taken by the researchers;

photographs were edited in size in order to be as similar as possible. The target stimuli

contained two words ‘Safe’ and ‘Dangerous. The response options contained the words

‘AGREE’ and ‘DISAGREE’. The stimulus used in the experiment is presented in Figure 1

and Figure 2.

General Procedure

All participants completed the study during a single session; the session lasted

between 30 and 40 minutes in total. Breaks were made available during the experiments,

however no participants opted for one.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 16Procedure

Participants were required to fill in a consent form before participation in the

experiment. Participants were then presented with four questionnaires to complete. Following

this participants were then required to complete the IRAP.

Verbal Instructions.

The procedure commences with a series of detailed instructions for the completion

and understanding of the IRAP trials. Instructions were along as followed (see Appendix A

for full instructions):

The study aims to explore the cognitive processes that are used in decisions involving

memory, and test research and theories of cognitive processes that occur beyond ones

awareness. The task requires you to sign a consent form, complete four questionnaires

and complete a computer based the task. The task will be displayed on the computer

screen and your responses to the task will be entered using the keyboard. You can

have a break from the study while the instructions are displayed on the screen and can

withdraw at any time without providing reason.

Figure 1. A representation of the Asian trial type.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 17The computer task will consist of a number of different blocks. During the task you

will be presented with a screen that looks like this [Figure 1 is presented on a sheet of

paper to participant]. The picture will be either of a White person or an Asian person

with the words ‘Safe’ or ‘Dangerous’ beneath it. Prior to beginning a block I will tell

you how to answer during that block, for example I may ask you to answer that when

you see the Asian person you answer that he is ‘Dangerous’, so when you see the

picture I just showed you, you would answer ‘AGREE’. However, if I asked you to

answer that the Asian person was ‘Safe’ you would answer ‘DISAGREE’. To select

‘AGREE’ or ‘DISAGREE’ you will press either the ‘d’ key or the ‘k’ key, the

position of ‘AGREE’ or ‘DISAGREE’ will randomly swap from left to right, so you

will not always select the same key to answer ‘AGREE’ or ‘DISAGREE’.

During the experiment you will be asked to respond as quickly and as accurately as

you can. If you provide an incorrect response, a red ‘X’ will appear on the screen, to

remove the red ‘X’ and continue onto the next screen you should press the correct

response quickly.

The first two blocks of the task are for practice so you can get used to the task, the

practice blocks will repeat until you reach at least 80% accuracy on the trials and

respond faster than 2000 milliseconds (i.e. 2 seconds) on average. Once this is

achieved you will automatically continue onto the test-phase of the task.

Feedback

The IRAP trials are referred to as test trials generally (similarly to the IAT), incorrect

responses are met with automated corrective written feedback and a correction procedure.

Should participants enter an incorrect response, a red ‘X’ will remain on the screen below the

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 18target stimuli until a correct response is entered. The next trial will appear automatically

following a correct response. When participants provide a correct response during trials, the

next screen will appear automatically.

IRAP Trials

The IRAP trials (i.e. both test blocks and practice blocks) were presented in an

identical format in which practice trials were completed first. The number of practice blocks

participants completed ranged between two and eight blocks; this was dependent on their

performance during the practice blocks. Once participants achieved the mastery criteria of the

IRAP (both accuracy and response latency), they then proceeded onto the first test block.

Participants were required to complete a total of six test blocks. After completion of each

block of trials, participants were presented with automated feedback showing their percentage

of correct trials and their median response times (in milliseconds).

Trial-Types

Consistent and Inconsistent Responding.

Each IRAP block of trials was designated as consistent or inconsistent for

experimental reasons. Participants were presented with a minimum of two practice blocks

(one consistent and one inconsistent), following this participants were presented with six test

blocks (three consistent and three inconsistent). The sequence during the IRAP was presented

in alternating blocks of inconsistent and consistent trials. The result of this meant that

participants were required to switch their patterns of accurate responding across the blocks.

To avoid order effects, the block sequencing was counterbalanced across the participants. To

achieve this, half of the participants were required to complete a consistent practice block

first, followed by the inconsistent practice block, followed by the consistent test block and so

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 19on. The other half of participants were required to complete the inconsistent block first and so

on.

The responses on any trial were recorded as correct or incorrect depending on whether

the trial block was in the consistent or inconsistent category. Trials were categorized as

consistent when the relations among the sample and the target stimuli were consistent to the

views predicted to be held by participants before the study. On these trials participants were

expected to more readily relate positive evaluations with ‘Safe’, and the negative evaluations

with ‘Dangerous’. For example, a consistent trial would be a picture of the White person

being ‘Safe’ and the Asian person being ‘Dangerous’. An inconsistent trial would be a picture

of the Asian person being ‘Safe’ and the White person being ‘Dangerous’.

Figure 2. A representation of the Asian and White trial types.

Trials were categorized as inconsistent when the relations among the sample and

target stimuli were not consistent with the views predicted to be held by the participants prior

to the study.

Consider the example trials in Figure 2. On consistent trials the correct responses

would be selecting ‘AGREE’ as ‘Dangerous’ for the Asian male and selecting ‘AGREE’ as

‘Safe’ for the White male. The end of the sixth trial block was the end of the experiment for

the participants. Following this, participants were debriefed and thanked for participating.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 20

Results

IRAP

The IRAP consisted of three blocks of four trial types, these trial types were ‘Safe

White’, ‘Safe Asian’, ‘Dangerous White’ and ‘Dangerous Asian’. The ‘Safe White’ D-IRAP

scores were positive (M = .30, SD = .38) indicating that participants agreed that White people

were ‘Safe’. However, participants were only slightly slower matching the word ‘Dangerous’

and ‘TRUE’ to pictures of White people, as suggested in the ‘Dangerous White’ D-IRAP

scores which were negative (M = -.06, SD = .43). This result suggests participants did not

display a strong preference in indicating that the White person was ‘Dangerous’ or not

‘Dangerous’, suggesting they held a neutral opinion. Similarly, the ‘Safe Asian’ D-IRAP

scores were positive (M = .34, SD = .36) and indicate that participants were only slightly

slower when matching the picture of an Asian person to the word ‘Safe’ and ‘TRUE. This

finding suggests that participants did not display a strong preference in indicating an Asian

Person as ‘Safe’ or not ‘Safe’, suggesting they held a neutral opinion.

However, participants agreed that Asians were ‘DANGEROUS as seen in the

‘Dangerous Asian’ scores which were negative (M = -.19, SD = .40). The descriptive

statistics for the trial types suggest that participants agreed that White people were safe and

that Asian people were dangerous. Participants held neutral opinions on White people being

dangerous and Asian people being Safe.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics For IRAP Trial Type D-IRAP Means

Trial Type Mean SD

Safe White .30 .38

Safe Asian .34 .36

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 21Dangerous White -.06 .43

Dangerous Asian -.1873 .40

A one way t-test was conducted to examine the differences in response latencies

amongst the four IRAP trial types: ‘Safe White’, ‘Safe Asian’, ‘Dangerous White’ and

‘Dangerous Asian’. It was predicted that response latencies for the ‘Safe White’ trial type

would be less than the ‘Safe Asian’ trial type, due to predictions that these beliefs were

consistent to their own so would therefore answer more quickly. The results for the ‘Safe

White’ trial type t(29) = 4.42, p<.05 were significant. Results for the ‘Safe Asian’ trial type

were also significant t(29) = -5.181, p<.05. This suggests that participants took longer to

answer in the ‘Safe Asian’ than in the ‘Safe White’ trial type. These findings indicate that

responding was significantly different to zero, indicating a stronger than neutral response

towards White people being safe, which suggests participants agreed White people to be safe.

It was predicted that the response latencies for the ‘Dangerous White’ trial type would

be more than the ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial type, due to predictions that these beliefs were

inconsistent to their own, so participants would answer more slowly. The mean scores

indicated that the mean response latencies of the ‘Dangerous White’ trial type (M = -.06, SD

= .43) were less than that of the ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial type (M = -.19, SD = .19). The

results for the ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial type were significant t(29) = -2.56, p<.05. This

suggests that participants took longer to answer for the ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial type. These

findings indicate that responding was significantly different to zero, indicating a stronger than

neutral response towards Asian people being dangerous, which suggests participants agreed

Asian people were dangerous. The results for the ‘Dangerous White’ trial type were non-

significant t(29) = -.79, p>.05. This indicates that participants were neutral on White people

being dangerous.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 22Two-Way Within Subjects ANOVA

The latency times in milliseconds of the IRAP trial types (‘Safe Asian’, ‘Safe White’,

‘Dangerous White’, ‘Dangerous Asian’) were examined. The data was analyzed using a two-

way within subjects ANOVA. The mean D-IRAP and standard deviations for the trial types

can be seen in Table 1. It was predicted that the ‘Safe Asian’ and ‘Dangerous White’ trial

type latencies would be greater than that of the ‘Dangerous Asian’ and ‘Safe White’

latencies. Mauchly’s test of Sphericity was p>.05 for all trial types indicating that they all had

similar variances, therefore an ANOVA could be used. There was a non-significant main

effect of Block Number, meaning that Block Number did not affect latency times F(2, 58) =

3.30, p>.05, ηp2 = .10.There was a significant main effect of Trial Type, indicating that Trial

Type had a significant effect on latency times F(3, 87) = 12.52, p<.05, ηp2 = .30. There was

an non-significant interaction between Block Number and Trial Type, indicating that Block

Number did not have an effect on Trial Type latency times F(6, 174) = 1.02, p>.05, ηp2

= .03.As this interaction was not significant, it was not necessary to look at the simple main

effects. In summary, the order the block order did not have a significant effect on latency

times, meaning that there were no order effects in the study. Trial types had a significant

effect on latency times, meaning that latency times were significantly affected by the varying

trial types.

To explore this further, a post hoc Bonferroni test was conducted and the pairwise

comparisons were examined in order to compare the significance in differences of the trial

types; ‘Safe White’, ‘Dangerous White’, ‘Safe Asian’ and ‘Dangerous Asian’. Two largely

significant results were indicated, significant differences were observed between the ‘Safe

White’ and ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial types (p<0.05) and between the ‘Safe Asian’ and

‘Dangerous Asian’ trial types (p<0.05). These results suggest that the ‘Safe White’ versus

‘Dangerous Asian’ trial types and the ‘Safe Asian’ versus ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial types,

displayed the most significant differences.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 23Results indicated that the order the blocks during the IRAP did not have a significant

effect on latency times, meaning that there were no order effects in the study. Trial types had

a significant effect on latency times, meaning that latency times were significantly affected

by the varying trial types. Findings also indicated that the largest significant differences were

between the ‘Safe White’ and ‘Dangerous Asian’ trial types and the ‘Safe Asian’ and

‘Dangerous Asian’ trial types.

Explicit Measures

The study used four explicit measures, the Modified Johnson-Lecci Scale (MJLS), the

Modified Modern Racism Scale (MMRS), the Modified Racial Experience Questionnaire

(MREQ) and the Modified Social Dominance Orientation Questionnaire (MSDOQ). Table 2

shows the means and standard deviations of the explicit measures.

The MJLS (Johnson & Lecci, 2003) is designed to examine racial attitudes of Black

people towards White people. The measure contains 30 items, e.g. ‘I believe that the majority

of White people in the UK really believe that Asian people are genetically inferior’, to which

a participant would answer between ‘Definitely Agree’ (1) and ‘Definitely Disagree’ (4).

Scores were measured on a 4-point scale (see Appendix C), scores ranged from 30-120. A

low number indicated a belief that the majority of white people in the UK possess racist

views towards Asian people; a high score indicated the belief that the majority of white

people in the UK do not possess racist views towards Asian people. The mean score of the

MJLS scores (M= 3.4, SD = .33) indicated that participants believed that the majority of

white people in the UK did not possess racist views towards Asian people.

The MMRS (McConahay, 1986) aims to measure the cognitive component of racial

attitudes, and capture modern and subtle forms of racism. The measure contains 17 items, e.g.

‘Asian people should live far out in the countryside’, to which a participant would answer

between ‘Strongly Agree’ (1) to ‘Strongly Disagree’ (5). Scores were measured on a 5-point

scale (see Appendix B), scores ranged from 17-85. A low number indicated racist beliefs

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 24towards Asian people, and a high number indicated non-racist beliefs. The mean score of the

MMRS (M =2.52, SD = .56) indicated that participants held relatively racist views towards

Asian people.

The MREQ (Campbell et al., 2011) is a method used to measure individuals’

experiences with different social groups. The measure contains 6 items, eg. ‘Would you say

that your overall experiences of meeting Asian people have been positive or negative?’, to

which a participant would answer between ‘Very Negative’ (1) and ‘Very Positive’ (6). ‘Do

you know any Asian people in the UK’ to which a participant would answer between ‘None’

(1) and ‘Many’ (3). Scores were measured on a 2-6 point scale (see Appendix D), scores

ranged from 6-20. Low scores indicated a low amount of experiences with Asian people. The

mean score of the MREQ scores (M = 1.91, SD = .4), indicated that participants had a low

amount of experiences with Asian people. The mean score for Question 1 of the MREQ (Do

you know any Asian people in the UK?) (M = .06, SD = .19) indicated that the amount of

Asian people they knew was low. The mean score for Question 2 of the MREQ (Do you have

any acquaintances who are Asian?) (M = .49, SD = .19) indicated that participants had a low

amount of Asian acquaintances. The mean score for Question 3 of the MREQ (Do you work

with any Asian people?) (M = .42, SD = .17) indicated that participants worked with a low

amount of Asian people. The mean score for Question 4 of the MREQ (Would you say that

you have had one or more close friendships with an Asian person?) (M = .51, SD = .17),

indicated that most participants did not have one or more close friendships with an Asian

person. The mean score for Question 5 of the MREQ (Do many Asian people live in your

neighbourhood?) (M = .05, SD = .03), indicated that participants had a low amount of Asian

neighbours. The mean score for Question 6 of the MREQ (Would you say that your overall

experiences of meeting Asian people have been positive or negative?) (M = .13, SD = .04),

indicated that participants experiences with Asian people were mainly negative.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 25The MSDOQ (Pratto et al., 1994) is a method of measuring the desire for equality and

inequality amongst social groups. The item contains 15 items, e.g. ‘It would be good if

groups could be equal’, to which a participant would answer between ‘Strongly Disagree’ (1)

and ‘Strongly Agree’ (7). Scores were measured on a 7-point scale, scores ranged from 15-

105. High numbers indicated a desire for group based discrimination. The mean score of the

MSDOQ (M = 4.12, SD = .61) indicated that participants leant slightly more towards a desire

for group equality than for group based discrimination.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics For Explicit Measures Means

Questionnaire Mean SD

Modified Johnson-Lecci Scale 3.40 .33

Modified Modern Racism Scale 2.52 .56

Modified Racial Experience Questionnaire 1.91 .40

Modern Racial Experience Questionnaire Question 1 .059 .19

Modern Racial Experience Questionnaire Question 2 .49 .19

Modern Racial Experience Questionnaire Question 3 .42 .17

Modern Racial Experience Questionnaire Question 4 .51 .17

Modern Racial Experience Questionnaire Question 5 .05 .03

Modern Racial Experience Questionnaire Question 6 .13 .04

Modified Social Dominance Questionnaire 4.12 .61

Correlations between Implicit and Explicit Measures

Correlations between the Explicit and Implicit measures were examined; there were a

number of correlations found amongst the explicit measures and one correlation found

between the explicit and implicit measure. Firstly, a moderate negative correlation was found

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 26between the Modified Racial Experience Questionnaire (MREQ) and the Modified Modern

Racism Scale (MMRS) (r = -.427; n = 30; p<.05). The correlation was significant, thus

suggesting that participants who scored higher on the MREQ scored lower on the MMRS.

These results indicate that individuals who have more social experiences with Asian people

are less likely to be racist.

A moderate positive correlation was found between the MREQ and the Modified

Johnson-Lecci Scale (MJLS), the correlation was significant (r = .43; n = 30; p<.05). This

correlation suggests that participants who scored high on the MREQ also scored high on the

MJLS. These results indicate that individuals who have more social experiences with Asian

people are less likely to perceive the white British public to be racist.

A moderate negative correlation was found between the ‘Safe White’ IRAP trial type

and the MLJS, the correlation was significant (r = -.39; n = 30; p<.05). This correlation

suggests that people, who were biased towards ‘White Safe’, were more likely to report racist

attitudes on the MJLS, and consider society as racist.

In summary, participants agreed that white people were safe and that Asian people

were dangerous on the IRAP. Participants where neutral on White people being dangerous

and Asian people being safe. The explicit measures indicated that individuals believed the

majority of White people in the UK did not possess racist views towards Asian people. It was

also found that participants self-reported attitudes indicated moderately racist attitudes, in

regards to their views against Asian people. Individuals also had low social experiences with

Asian people, and had a slightly stronger desire for group equality than group segregation.

Correlations suggest that individuals who have more social experiences with Asian

people are less likely to be racist. It was also found that individuals who have more social

experiences with Asian people are less likely to perceive the white British public to be racist.

As predicted in the study, individuals perceived Asian people to be dangerous and white

people to be safe.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 27Discussion

The findings of the present study indicate that participants perceived White people to

be safe and Asian people to be dangerous, when both were presented with dangerous objects.

The explicit measures indicated that participants believed the majority of white people in the

UK did not possess racist views towards Asian people. In contrast to this, the findings

suggested that participants held relatively racist views towards Asian people. Results also

indicated that participants had a low amount of social experiences with Asian people, and

largely negative experiences. The findings suggest that individuals who had more social

experiences with Asian people were less likely to display racist attitudes and less likely to

perceive the British public as racist towards Asian people. Individuals that did consider the

British public to be racist were biased towards perceiving White people as safe.

These findings are important as they highlight a same race bias in perceptions of

dangerousness. Results support the idea that racism is still a major issue in society (Pascoe et

al., 2009) and that racism towards Asian people is increasingly prominent (Dalal, 2008) as

racist attitudes were expressed on both explicit and implicit measures, revealing a same race

bias. Implicit race bias has been directly associated with race discrimination and race

stereotyping (Amodio & Devine, 2006), so therefore any research that furthers psychological

knowledge on this subject is important as it can help to both highlight the issue and help

develop methods of counteracting it. Much of the research to date regarding implicit attitudes

has measured racial bias between White people and Black people (Correl et al., 2011), results

of such studies indicated that White people were more likely to perceive a Black person more

dangerous than a White person. This finding is consistent with the results from the present

study, despite the stimuli featuring Asian and White people. This highlights the issue that a

same race bias towards perceived dangerousness spans across multiple races, not just towards

Black people.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 28The findings of the present study are consistent with past research that highlights a

same race bias, in which individuals are more likely to perceive people of a different race to

their own as more dangerous (Correl et al., 2011; Oliver & Fonash, 2002; Greenwald et al.,

2002). The results are also consistent with research using other implicit measures of racism,

such as the IAT. Barnes-Holmes et al. (2006) found that individuals were more likely to

associate positive words with White people and associate negative words with Black people.

The present study shows similar findings, as participants were more likely to associate the

negative word ‘Dangerous’ with Asian people, and associate the positive word ‘Safe’ with

White people.

The current study also helps to further research on the utility of the IRAP as a

measure of implicit racial attitudes. The findings of the present study were consistent with

past research, demonstrating that the IRAP is an effective tool in measuring implicit racial

attitudes (Drake et al., 2010; Campbell et al., 2011). Campbell et al. found an in-group bias

from White people towards the out-group, when a dangerous object was present. Suggesting

participants found it more difficult to acknowledge members of their own race to be

dangerous, than members of a different race. The present study indicated the same findings,

participants were more likely to report Asian people to be dangerous than they was to report

White people as dangerous when a dangerous object was present, thus showing an in-group

bias.

The comparison between the explicit measures and the IRAP proved useful. The

explicit measures suggested individuals held relatively racist views; these findings were

consistent with the IRAP results which indicated a same race bias. Greenwald et al. (2003)

suggest that the more consistent the results between implicit and explicit measures are, the

greater the validity of what is being measured. The finding that individuals reported

moderately racist views in the modified Modern Racism Scale (McConahay, 1986), goes

against the idea that individuals are less likely to report undesirable social qualities – such as

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 29racism – on questionnaires; as they may want to disguise such characteristics (Edwards,

1953). This is important as it shows individuals are sometimes willing to explicitly express

undesirable qualities, it also suggests that explicit measures can be successfully used as a

measure of racism.

In relation to theoretical issues, the current study supports ideas presented in

both Social Identity Theory and Contact Theory. Social Identity Theory suggests that

people will discriminate against races different to their own and attempt to find

negative attributes in order to enhance their own self- image (Blascovich et al.,1997).

The findings of the current study supported this idea, as despite the White male and the

Asian male both holding dangerous objects, participants perceived the White male to be

safe and the Asian male to be dangerous.

The findings also support the ideas proposed in Contact Theory, which suggests

that the more an individual mixes and interacts with a different social group to their

own then the less likely they are to be prejudice towards this group. This was supported

with correlations between the Racial Experience Questionnaire (Campbell et al., 2011),

an explicit measure measuring individuals experiences with Asian people and the

modified Modern Racism Scale (McConahay, 1986). Findings indicated that the more

social experiences a participant had with Asian people then the less likely they were to

hold racist attitudes towards Asian people in general.

The study contained several limitations. Firstly, the sample size used was

relatively small; this would have been marginally larger however the data for some

participants was removed due to not reaching the IRAP criteria. A second limitation of

the sample is that it contained only participants from the North West of England; this is

relevant as other areas of Britain may possess different attitudes than those contained

in the study. Similarly other areas of Britain may be more culturally diverse, meaning

individuals would have more social interactions with Asian people which could relate to

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 30Contact Theory (e.g. more social interactions with Asian people results in less prejudice

behaviour). A larger and more locationally diverse sample may have benefited results in

terms of generalizability and would also increase the external validity of the results.

A further limitation is that the IRAP only measures implicit attitudes in a lab

setting, and cannot predict prejudiced behaviours when individuals are in a natural

environment. Due to this fact it is important to recognize that racist attitudes revealed

in the IRAP may not necessary lead to discriminatory actions in a natural environment.

Despite this, both research to date and the present study suggest that the IRAP can

successfully be utilized as a means of revealing implicit attitudes such as racism that

may not be highlighted when using explicit measures.

There are a number of ideas for future research that could further psychological

knowledge of implicit racial attitudes and perceptions of dangerousness. Firstly, the

present study used only pictures of Males holding dangerous objects as stimuli in the

IRAP; it may be beneficial for future research to present pictures of Females holding

dangerous objects. It is possible that the gender of the person in the stimuli could affect

perceptions of dangerousness. A second idea for future research is to collect data from

participants of different race, for example testing whether Asian people perceive White

people to be more dangerous than individuals of their own race. Such research would

be beneficial as it would determine whether a same race bias is present amongst

various races or just amongst White people.

It may also be beneficial to manipulate the shade of an individual’s skin colour in

the IRAP stimuli, for example comparing light skinned Asian people to darker skinned

Asian people. This could determine whether the shade of a person’s skin affects

perceptions of dangerousness, for example, individuals may perceive people with

darker skin tones to be more dangerous or more safe. This research could not only

distinguish whether it is the shade of a person’s skin or the race of a person (e.g. Black

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 31or Asian) that affects an individual’s perception of skin, but also which of the two has

the biggest effect on such perceptions.

A further idea for future research would be to test participants holding stronger

racist views. Such results could be compared to non-racist individuals. The differences

in implicit attitudes between outwardly racist individuals and non-racist individuals

could be examined. Findings would be beneficial as such research could highlight the

contrasting levels of implicit racist attitudes held by outwardly racist individuals and

non-racist individuals.

The current study aimed to explore racism, in particular, perceptions of

dangerousness. It was predicted that White participants would perceive Asian people to

be dangerous and White people to be safe, when both races were holding dangerous

objects; results confirmed these predictions and provided further support for the IRAP

being a useful tool in the measure of implicit racial attitudes.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 32References

Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias:

Evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 652-661.

Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C. & Egloff, B. (2009). Predicting actual behavior from the

explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 97, 533-548.

Banaji, M. R. & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgements of

fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 181-198.

Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Power, P., Hayden, E., Milne, R. & Stewart, I.

(2006). Do you really know what you believe? Developing the Implicit

Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a direct measure of implicit

beliefs. The Irish Psychologist, 32(7), 169-177.

Bhui, K., Stansfeld, S., McKenzie, K., Karlsen, S., Nazroo, J., & Weich, S. (2005).

Racial/ethnic discrimination and common mental disorders among workers:

Findings from the EMPIRIC study of ethnic minority groups in the United

Kingdom. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 496–501.

Blascovich, J., Wyer, N., Swart, L. A. & Kibler, J. L. (1997). Racism and racial

categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1364-

1372.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 33Brigham, J. C. (1993). College students’ racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 23, 1933-1967.

Campbell, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Stewart, I. (2011). Exploring screen

presentations in the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure

(IRAP). International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy,

11, 377-388.

Carter, R. T., Mazzula, S., Victoria, R., Vazquez, R., Hall, S., Smith, S., & ... Williams, B.

(2013). Initial development of the Race-Based Traumatic Stress Symptom

Scale: Assessing the emotional impact of racism. Psychological Trauma:

Theory, Research, Practice, And Policy, 5(1), 1-9.

Carmines, E. G., Sniderman, P. M. & Easter, B. C. 2011. “On the Meaning, Measurement,

and Implications of Racial Resentment.” The Annals of the American Academy

of Political and Social Science 634: 98-116.

Chiricos, T., Hogan, M., & Gertz, M. (1997). Racial composition of neighborhood and

fear of crime. Criminology, 25, 107-131.

Correll, J., Wittenbrink, B., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Goyle, A. (2011). Dangerous enough:

Moderating racial bias with contextual threat cues. Journal Of Experimental

Social Psychology, 47(1), 184-189.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 34Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K. J. & Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit attitude measures:

Consistency, stability and convergent validity. Psychological Science, 12, 163-

170.

Dalal, F. (2008). Thought paralysis: Tolerance, and the fear of Islam. Psychodynamic

Practice: Individuals, Groups And Organisations, 14(1), 77-95.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and

1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315-319.

Drake, C. E., Kellum, K. K., & Wilson, K. G. (2010). Examining the Implicit Relational

Assessment Procedure: Four preliminary studies. The Psychological Record,

60(1), 81-86.

Edwards, A. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and

the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology,

37,90–93.

Emerson, M. O., Kimbro, R., & Yancey, G. (2002). Contact theory extended: The effects of

prior racial contact on current social ties. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 745-

761.

Fleischhauer, M., Strobel, A., Enge, S., & Strobel, A. (2013). Assessing implicit cognitive

motivation: Developing and testing an Implicit Association Test to measure

need for cognition. European Journal Of Personality, 27(1), 15-29.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 35Greenwald, A.G., Nosek, B.A., & Banaji, M.R. (2003). Understanding and using the

Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.

Greenwald, A. G., Oakes, M. A., & Hoffman, H. G. (2003). Targets of discrimination:

Effects of race on responses to weapons holders. Journal Of Experimental

Social Psychology, 39(4), 399-405.

Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-

analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit

self-report measure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369–

1385.

Iyengar, S., Messing, S., Bailenson, J., & Hahn, K. S. (2010). Do Explicit Racial Cues

Influence Candidate Preference? The Case of Skin Complexion in the 2008

Campaign. In Annual Meeting of the APSA, Washington.

Johnson, J. D. & Lecci, L. (2003). Assessing anti-white attitudes and predicting perceived

racism: The johnson-lecci scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

29, 299-312.

Johnson, J. D., Lecci, L., & Swim, J. (2006). Predicting perceived racism and acceptance of

negative behavioral intergroup responses: Validating the JLS in a college and

community sample of Blacks. Personality And Individual Differences, 40(3),

421-431.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 36Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict:

Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905.

Krysan, M., & Couper, M. P. (2003). Race in the Live and the Virtual Interview: Racial

Deference, Social Desirability, and Activation Effects in Attitude Surveys.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(4), 364-383.

Lowe, S., Okubo, Y., & Reilly, M. F. (2012). A qualitative inquiry into racism, trauma, and

coping: Implications for supporting victims of racism. Professional

Psychology: Research And Practice, 43(3), 190-198.

McConahay, J. B. (1983). Modern racism and modern discrimination: The effects of race,

racial attitudes, and context on simulated hiring decisions. Personality And

Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(4), 551-558.

McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J.

F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-

89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

McDaniel, M. J., Beier, M. E., Perkins, A. W., Goggin, S. & Frankel, B. (2009). An

assessment of the fakeability of self-report and implicit personality measures.

Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 682-685.

Mckenna, I. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y. & Steward, I. (2007). Testing the

fake-ability of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP): The first

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 37study. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7(2),

123-138.

Nosek, B. A., Hawkins, C. B. & Frazier, R. S. (2011). Implicit social cognition: From

measures to mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(4), 152-159.

Oliver, M., & Fonash, D. (2002). Race and crime in the news: Whites' identification and

misidentification of violent and nonviolent criminal suspects. Media

Psychology, 4(2), 137-156.

Pedregon, C. A., Farley, R. L., Davis, A., Wood, J. M., & Clark, R. D. (2012). Social

desirability, personality questionnaires, and the “better than average” effect.

Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 213-217.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J. Stallworth, L. M. & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation:

A personality variable predicting socialand political attitudes. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 741-763.

Saucier, D. A. & Miller, C. T. (2003). The persuasiveness of racial arguments as a subtle

measure of racism. Society For Personality And Social Psychology, 29(10),

1303-1315).

Summers, G. F., & Hammonds, A. D. (1966). Effect of racial characteristics of

investigator on self-enumerated responses to a Negro prejudice scale. Social

Forces, 44(4), 515-518.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 38Tummala-Narra, P., Inman, A. G., & Ettigi, S. P. (2011). Asian Indians' responses to

discrimination: A mixed-method examination of identity, coping, and self-

esteem. Asian American Journal Of Psychology, 2(3), 205-218.

Yang, J., He, J. & Gu, Y. (2012). The implicit measurement of destination image: The

application of implicit association tests. Tourism Management, 33(1), 50-52.

Appendix A

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 39IRAP Instructions (Campbell, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Stewart, I.

(2011)

“Our research investigates cognitive processes that are used in decisions that involve memory. We are seeking to develop

and test theories of cognitive processes that occur inside and outside of awareness in the routine use of memory.

Stimuli will be presented on this display screen and your responses will be entered on the keyboard.

The research assumes that you can read English fluently, and that your vision is normal or corrected to normal. If you do not

consider yourself fluent in English, or if your vision is not normal or corrected to normal, and ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE

HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY READING THIS DESCRIPTION, PLEASE ask the Experimenter now whether or not you

should continue.

Your identity as a participant is confidential. Further, you are free to discontinue participation at any time, without penalty.

In keeping with standard practice, your data may be retained for 5 years or so, during which time only the investigators on

this or successor projects will have access to them.

PLEASE NOW READ THE STATEMENT BELOW, WHERE YOU WILL BE ASKED TO RESPOND TO A

STANDARD INFORMED CONSENT QUESTION. CONSENT STATEMENT

I have read the description of the procedure. I understand that the questions I may have about this research will be answered

by Professor Barnes-Holmes or one of the other researchers working on this project. If you consent to participate in the

research that has been described on the preceding display pages you should now read the Instructions for the sorting tasks

below.

[INSTRUCTION: If you wish to ask any questions first, alert the experimenter now.

IF YOU WISH NOT TO PROCEED, you should inform the experimenter].

INSTRUCTIONS

Shown below are illustrations of the four different types of task [only one illustration is presented here] that will be

presented repeatedly in this part of the experiment. To help you understand the tasks each of the four illustrations is

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 40explained immediately underneath. Please examine each illustration and then read carefully the explanation attached to it.

Please make sure that you understand each task before continuing with the experiment.

IMPORTANT: FROM TRIAL TO TRIAL THE POSITIONING OF THE RESPONSE OPTIONS (SIMILAR AND

OPPOSITE) WILL VARY RANDOMLY BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT [THIS WAS ONLY PRESENTED, AS

APPROPRIATE].”

Illustration 1

Explanation for Illustration 1

If you select “AGREE” by pressing the ‘d’ key, you are stating that the picture IS “DANGEROUS”.

If you select “DISAGREE” by pressing the ‘k’ key, you are stating that the picture IS NOT “DANGEROUS”.

“NOTE: DURING THE EXPERIMENT A RANGE OF OTHER PICTURES WILL BE PRESENTED, AS WELL AS THE

ONES USED IN THE EXAMPLES.

REMEMBER: FROM TRIAL TO TRIAL THE POSITIONING OF THE RESPONSE OPTIONS (AGREE AND

DISAGREE) WILL VARY RANDOMLY BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT [AS APPROPRIATE].

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

“During the experiment you will be asked to respond as quickly and accurately as you can across all trials.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 41The relating tasks will be presented in short sessions that are separated by the appearance of instructions on the computer

screen. You can take a short break if you like while the instructions are on-screen.

During each short session the relating task follows one general rule. An incorrect response on any trial is signaled by the

appearance of a red ‘X’ in the center of the 1 screen. To remove the red ‘X’ and move on to the next trial, please press the

correct response key quickly.

After each session, further instructions will appear and they will tell you that the general rule that applied in the previous

session is now completely reversed. Please pay close attention to these instructions and do your best to follow them.

So, just to clarify, there will be only two general relating rules, and so the first thing you should do at the beginning of each

session is to discover the rule by using the feedback you get in the form of the red ‘X’.

It is very important to understand that sometimes you will be required to respond to the tasks in a way that agrees with what

you believe and at other times you will be required to respond in a way that disagrees with what you believe. This is part of

the experiment.

The first two sessions are for practice only and these are repeated until you respond accurately on at least 80% of the relating

trials, and respond faster, on average, than 2000 milliseconds (i.e. 2 seconds). When you complete the practice phase, the

test-phase will then start. Remember, you should try to make your responses as accurately and quickly as possible.

Good Luck. If you do not understand something about the foregoing instructions or have any further questions please talk to

the researcher before clicking on the blue button.”

Appendix B

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 42Modified Modern Racism Scale (MMRS) (McConahay, 1986)

Participant Number: ……………………………………..Please could you indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with these statements by circling a number on the scale, where 1 indicates that you strongly agree and 5 indicates you strongly disagree.

1.) Asian people should live far out in the countryside.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

2.) Asian people do not keep their homes tidy. Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

3.) Asian people do not take care of their personal hygiene.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

4.) Asian people are generally honest people.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

5.) Generally speaking, Asian people have high moral principles.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

6.) Asian people are generally not very intelligent.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

7.) I favour full integration of White British and Asian people.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

8.) Asian people hold negative attitudes toward women.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

9.) Discrimination against Asian people is no longer a problem in the UK.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

10.) There have been enough programmes designed to create jobs for Asian people.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

11.) Racist groups are no longer a threat toward Asian people.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

12.) It is easy to understand Asian people’s demands for equal rights.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

13.) Asian people get too little attention in the media.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

14.) Asian people are getting too demanding in the push for equal rights.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

15.) It is important to invest money in teaching Asian people their mother tongue.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 4316.) Special programs are needed to create jobs for Asian people.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

17.) A multicultural UK would be good.Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

Appendix C

Modified Johnson-Lecci Scale (MJLS) (Johnson & Lecci, 2003)

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 44Please could you complete the following questionnaire as honestly as you can, indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Please adopt the viewpoint of the majority of the white population in the UK. That is, please answer how you think that the majority of the white population in the UK think, feel or believe in accordance with each question.

Question Definitely Agree

Fairly Agree Fairly Disagree

Definitely Disagree

1. I believe that the majority of White people in the UK would love to return to a time in which Asian people had less civil rights.2. I believe that the majority of White people in the UK really do support the ideas and thoughts of racist political groups.3. I believe that the majority of White people in the UK really believe that Asian people are genetically inferior.4. I believe the majority of White people in the UK would discriminate against Asian people if they could get away with it.5. I believe that most of the negative actions of White people in the UK towards Asian people are due to racist feelings.6. I believe that most White people in the UK would harm Asian people if they could get away with it.7. I believe that most White people in the UK think that they are superior to Asian people.8. I believe that the majority of White people in the UK think Asian people smell.9. I think that a lot of White people in the UK have tried to destroy something created by Asian people.10. I believe that the majority of Asian people in the UK would think success of a White person is due to their skin colour.11. I consider the majority of White people in the UK to be racist toward Asian people.12. I think the majority of White people in the UK blame Asian people for their problems or for the problems of other White people.13. I think the majority of White people in the UK think negatively upon those involved in inter-racial relationships.14. I think the majority of White people in the UK have spoken negatively about Asian people without concern as to their feelings.15. I think the majority of White people in the UK have made racial comments.16. I think the majority of White people in the UK have insulted an Asian person.17. I think the majority of White people in the UK have made general statements about all Asian people.18. I think that the majority of White people in the UK believe that Asian people are selfish.19. I think White people have accused other White people of befriending Asian people only to appear nonracist.20. I think the majority of White people in the UK have said “Thank you” to an Asian person.21. I think the majority of White people in the UK have given an Asian person the finger.22. I think the majority of White people in the UK

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 45have demonstrated a short temper with Asian people.23. I think the majority of White people in the UK believe that Asian people are all alike.24. I think that Asian people believe White people have had an advantage just because of their skin colour.25. I think the majority of White people in the UK believe that it is very unlikely that a White person could really “like” an Asian person.26. Although many White people in the UK have befriended Asian people, I think they still have not trusted them.27. I believe the majority of White people in the UK have used profanity against Asian people.28. I believe that most White people in the UK and the BNP have similar feelings about Asian people.29. I think the majority of White people in the UK continually use the phrase “a Paki.”30. I believe the majority of White people in the UK and the English Defence League have similar feelings.31. I believe that, despite outward appearances, most White people in the UK are racist.32. I think the majority of White people in the UK have been angry toward Asian people.33. I believe the majority of White people in the UK would sabotage an Asian person’s career because they do not want Asian people to succeed.

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 46

Appendix D

Modified Racial Experience Questionnaire (MREQ) (Campbell, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y.,

Barnes-Holmes, D., & Stewart, I. (2011)

Participant Number: ………………………………………Please could you complete this questionnaire about your experiences with Asian people, as truthfully as possible. Please put a ‘X’ next to the most suited answer.

1. Do you know any Asian people in the UK?None [ ] A few [ ] Many [ ]

2. Do you have any acquaintances who are Asian?None [ ] A few [ ] Many [ ]

3. Do you work with any Asian people?None [ ] A few [ ] Many [ ]

4. Would you say that you have had one or more close friendships with an Asian person?Yes [ ] No [ ]

5. Do many Asian people live in your neighbourhood?None [ ] A few [ ] Many [ ]

6. Would you say that your overall experiences of meeting Asian people have been positive or negative?Very Negative [ ] Negative [ ] Equally Negative and Positive [ ]Positive [ ] Very Positive [ ] Neither Negative or Positive [ ]

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 47

Appendix E

Social Dominance Orientation Questionnaire (SDO) (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth & Malle,

1994)

Participant Number: ………………

Please could you indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with these statements in relation to racial groups, by circling a number on the scale, where 1 indicates that you strongly disagree and 7 indicates you strongly agree.

1.) Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2.) It would be good if groups could be equal.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3.) In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4.) It's OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5.) Group equality should be our ideal.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6.) To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 487.) There is a need for increased social equality.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8.) If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9.) We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10.) No one group should dominate in society.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11.) It's probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12.) Inferior groups should stay in their place.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13.) Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14.) We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RACE AND PERCEPTIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS 4915.) We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5 6 7