The Persistence of an Anti-Stereotyping Intervention

5 Introduction. 6 Method. 11 Results. 16 Discussion. 18 References. 22 Persistence of Anti-stereotyping 5 Abstract Research demonstrates that Black people are more likely to be mistakenly shot in experimental computer programs when posing no threat (Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2002; Greenwald, Oakes, & Hoffman, 2003). Additionally, when primed with a Black face, participants recognize guns faster, and are more likely to mistake a harmless object (e.g. tool) for a gun (Judd et al., 2004; Payne 2001;2006). This may be related to stereotyping of Black people as aggressive, dangerous, threatening, and criminal (Correll, Park, Judd, Wittenbrink, Sadler, & Keesee, 2007; Devine & Elliot, 1995; Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003; Payne, 2001). The link between weapons and Black people may explain disparities in decisions to shoot. The current research was designed to investigate whether training in associating Black people with tools as opposed to weapons would reduce implicit bias immediately, and the extent to which this reduction in bias endures. Though previous training programs have successfully reduced shooter bias and stereotyping immediately and up to 24 hours later (Kawakami, Dovidio, Moll, Hermsen, & Russin, 2000; Plant, Peruche, & Butz, 2005), no research has yet systematically investigated the persistence of training effects up to at least one week later, which is necessary before implementing bias-reducing training programs into social institutions like schools or police departments. Participants in the counter-stereotypic training condition selected cell phones when presented with images of Black individuals and selected guns when presented with images of White individuals, whereas participants in the stereotype-maintenance condition made the opposite selections. Participants bias was measured immediately and again 1 to 7 days following their training session. Preliminary results are reported and the implications of this research are discussed. keywords: stereotypes, decisions to shoot, guns, racial bias Persistence of Anti-stereotyping 6 The Persistence of an Anti-stereotyping Intervention Police brutality, racial profiling, mass incarceration, and police accountability have been garnering greater attention in the United States. Researchers have increasingly examined these issues as the list of Black individuals who have died during police encounters continues to escalate (Humburg, n.d.; Swaine et al., n.d.). The need for an effective intervention that can reduce biases among police and law enforcement officials has never been clearer. The present research was designed to investigate the immediate and long-term effectiveness of an anti-bias intervention that targets the stereotypes which may contribute to police brutality against Black people. Research demonstrates that Black people are more likely to be mistakenly shot in experimental programs when posing no threat (Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2002; Correll, et al., 2007; Greenwald, Oakes, & Hoffman, 2003; Plant, Peruche, & Butz, 2005). In a study by Correll and colleagues (2002), participants were instructed to determine whether a suspect that appeared on screen was holding a gun or a neutral object. If the object was a gun, they were told to hit a designated "shoot" button, whereas if the object was neutral, they were told to hit a designated "don't shoot" button. Results demonstrated that participants were quicker to shoot an unarmed Black suspect compared to unarmed White suspect, slower to not shoot Black individuals with neutral objects, and made more errors when Black people were holding neutral objects. Furthermore, when primed with a Black face participants recognize guns faster, and are more likely to mistake a harmless object (e.g. tool) for a gun (Judd, Blair, & Chapleau, 2004; Payne 2001;2006). Moreover, Cunningham and colleagues (2004) found that amygdala Persistence of Anti-stereotyping 7 activation--which is associated with emotional fear responses-was greater when participants were presented with an image of a Black face compared to a White face. Implicit racial bias of White community members has also been found to predict disproportionate Black homicides by police (Hehman, Flake, & Calanchini, in press). Additionally, people require less certainty to decide whether to shoot when the target is Black as opposed to White (Klauer & Voss, 2008). Mere exposure to weapons inclines people to offer more attention to Black faces, even causing police officers to identify stereotypical-looking Black people as criminals (Eberhardt et al., 2004). This link between weapons and Black people, as well as stereotyping of Black people as aggressive, dangerous, threatening, and criminal (Correll et al., 2007; Devine & Elliot, 1995; Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003; Payne, 2001) may explain disparities in decisions to shoot. The current research is designed to investigate the efficacy of training to reduce the Blackweapons link. Because the decision to shoot is often made in a split-second, these interventions must focus on implicit processes. Though many strategies have been developed to change implicit responses (over 500 studies), less than 30 have examined how long these effects last (Lai, Skinner et al., 2016) and one study found that of 9 interventions that initially reduced implicit prejudice (Lai, Forscher et al. 2016), none reduced bias one week later. Thus, it is critical to not only study strategies to reduce stereotyping, but to also develop interventions that are long-lasting (Paluck & Green, 2009). Plant and colleagues (2005) investigated the duration of an intervention to reduce bias in the shooter task. Though they initially found participants held racial bias when asked to role play as police officers, results indicated that repeated exposure to stimuli where race was unrelated to the presence or absence of a gun reduced biases both immediately and 24 hours later. Though these findings are noteworthy, our study differs in that the focus will not be on decisions to shoot Persistence of Anti-stereotyping 8 like Plant and colleagues (2005). Instead, we are interested in the stereotypes that contribute to decisions to shoot, which to our knowledge has not been explored in the literature thus far. There is little evidence so far to suggest that anti-bias interventions will last for more than 24 hours. However, previous research has focused on prejudice-reducing interventions and has not examined interventions that reduce stereotyping or discrimination (Lai, Skinner et al., 2016). It is often assumed that prejudice interventions will change a whole host of related behaviors, however this is not true when prejudice is measured explicitly (specific attitudes predict specific behaviors not behaviors in general e.g., Davidson & Jaccard, 1979), nor is there much evidence of this when prejudice is measured implicitly (Carlsson & Agerström, 2016; Greenwald et al., 2009; Oswald, Mitchell, Blanton, Jaccard, & Tetlock, 2015). Targeting the link between Blacks and weapons may be an effective strategy to change a variety of relevant biases, including both positive and negative stereotypes. Though research by Kawakami et al. (2000) and Plant et al. (2005) has demonstrated that anti-bias interventions can be effective and last for at least 24 hours, the current study investigated the link between Black people and weapons, included a greater number of trials than Plant and colleagues (2005), and examined whether training effects generalize to stereotypes beyond those related to criminality and weapons, including both negative and positive stereotypes. This is an important point because it is possible that by inhibiting the targeted stereotype, others became more accessible, especially positive ones. I included questions regarding both the Black and Blue Lives Matter movements for exploratory purposes. There is a misconception that Blacks are more prone to engage in criminal behavior and I wanted to see if the anti-stereotyping intervention influences attitudes towards the Black and Blue Lives Matter Movements as well as affirmative action. By attempting to alter stereotypes of Blacks related to weapons and seeing if training effects could generalize to other Persistence of Anti-stereotyping 9 stereotypes, it is possible I may have changed related ideas involving affirmative action related to support of Black Lives Matter. My study will employ different tasks for training and measurement, allowing us to investigate if stereotype associations change. Additionally, this study will investigate training effects beyond 24 hours and see if the intervention’s effects persist up to 7 days later. Based on previous findings, I hypothesized that training in associating Blacks with cell phones instead of guns would reduce implicit bias immediately. However, I don’t know if these effects will persist beyond 24 hours. The answer to these questions is critical to the development of anti-bias interventions that can be implemented in the real world in the hopes of reducing the killing of unarmed Blacks. Possible Moderators of Stereotype Training To my knowledge, no research has yet looked into whether implicit bias training is moderated by individual differences. Some researchers argue that authoritarian personalities are particularly inclined to engage in stereotyping and prejudice (Adorno, Frenke