Private vs public expressions of racial prejudice

The present research examined the different processes that guide judgments of single group members in private vs anticipated public contexts. In each of three experiments, pro-Black or anti-Black participants were informed in advance either that their judgments of a Black individual were completely confidential (Private Context) or that they would be discussing their judgments with the other persons in the room (Anticipated Public Context). Experiment 1 showed that judgments of the target were more consistent with racial attitudes in the anticipated public than in the private condition. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and, moreover, showed nearly identical effects regardless of whether participants' attitudes were assessed by measures of modern vs "old-fashioned" racism. Experiment 3 again showed consistency between group attitudes and judgments of the target in anticipated public contexts, even when participants were given information about the likely "pro" or "anti" views of the audience and, hence, regardless of whether participants believed that the audience agreed with their own attitudes or not. Taken as a whole, results were consistent with a 'bolstering' framework first articulated in the cognitive dissonance domain (e.g., McGuire, 1964), which has shown that people become psychologically invested in their own positions when they anticipate debate with others, especially when their a priori commitment to their attitude is relatively high. The implications of the present results for theories of modern racism and the construct validity of the modern racism scale are discussed.