Having Explicit-Implicit Evaluation Discrepancies Triggers Race-Based Motivated Reasoning

Abstract

This work examined whether people with divergent explicit and implicit evaluations of African Americans exhibit motivated and biased judgments that could have negative repercussions for members of that group. Specifically, we proposed that participants with relatively more positive explicit evaluations and relatively more negative implicit evaluations of African Americans (i.e., greater explicit-implicit evaluative discrepancies) would engage in motivated reasoning, producing bias against group members. In Study 1, explicit-implicit evaluative discrepancies predicted setting higher standards for competence in domains where Whites are expected to excel and establishing lower standards for competence in domains where African Americans are expected to excel. In Study 2, larger explicit-implicit evaluative discrepancies predicted greater biased assimilation and attitude polarization when an African American (vs. a White) author presented a counterattitudinal message. Thus, having inconsistent explicit and implicit evaluations of a social group can instigate motivated reasoning, providing an avenue to denigrate out-group members and their opinions.