TY - JOUR
T1 - Both bias against disconfirmatory evidence and political orientation partially explain the relationship between dogmatism and racial prejudice
AU - Bronstein, Michael V.
AU - Dovidio, John F.
AU - Cannon, Tyrone D.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2017/1/15
Y1 - 2017/1/15
N2 - Background Dogmatism and prejudice are strongly related. We hypothesized that bias against disconfirmatory evidence (BADE) might explain a portion of this relationship unique from that explained by constructs including Political Orientation. BADE (measured by the BADE task) comprises two facets, Evidence Integration Impairment and Positive Response Bias. Only Evidence Integration Impairment was expected to partially explain the prejudice-dogmatism relationship because in prior research it alone was associated with group differences in inflexible beliefs. Method 254 MTurk participants completed measures of dogmatism, racial prejudice, BADE (Evidence Integration Impairment and Positive Response Bias), and Political Orientation. The hypothesized mediation effect was examined using a bootstrapping procedure. Results Dogmatism predicted racial prejudice [b = 0.24, t(249) = 4.92, p < .001]; this relationship weakened in the presence of the above measures [b = 0.05, t(246) = 0.91, p = .363]. The 95% confidence interval for the size of the indirect effect of dogmatism on racial prejudice via Evidence Integration Impairment did not include zero [0.151, 0.331], confirming the hypothesized mediation effect. Conclusions Evidence Integration Impairment accounts for a unique portion of the relationship between dogmatism and racial prejudice, suggesting that belief revision failures in ambiguous social situations may support prejudice in dogmatic individuals.
AB - Background Dogmatism and prejudice are strongly related. We hypothesized that bias against disconfirmatory evidence (BADE) might explain a portion of this relationship unique from that explained by constructs including Political Orientation. BADE (measured by the BADE task) comprises two facets, Evidence Integration Impairment and Positive Response Bias. Only Evidence Integration Impairment was expected to partially explain the prejudice-dogmatism relationship because in prior research it alone was associated with group differences in inflexible beliefs. Method 254 MTurk participants completed measures of dogmatism, racial prejudice, BADE (Evidence Integration Impairment and Positive Response Bias), and Political Orientation. The hypothesized mediation effect was examined using a bootstrapping procedure. Results Dogmatism predicted racial prejudice [b = 0.24, t(249) = 4.92, p < .001]; this relationship weakened in the presence of the above measures [b = 0.05, t(246) = 0.91, p = .363]. The 95% confidence interval for the size of the indirect effect of dogmatism on racial prejudice via Evidence Integration Impairment did not include zero [0.151, 0.331], confirming the hypothesized mediation effect. Conclusions Evidence Integration Impairment accounts for a unique portion of the relationship between dogmatism and racial prejudice, suggesting that belief revision failures in ambiguous social situations may support prejudice in dogmatic individuals.
KW - BADE
KW - Belief revision
KW - Dogmatism
KW - Evidence integration
KW - Prejudice
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988812027&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988812027&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.036
DO - 10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.036
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84988812027
SN - 0191-8869
VL - 105
SP - 89
EP - 94
JO - Personality and Individual Differences
JF - Personality and Individual Differences
ER -