White’s Perceptions of Biracial Individuals’ Race Shift When Biracials Speak Out Against Bias

Abstract

Previous research suggests that a person’s racial identity shapes the way others respond when that person speaks out against racial prejudice. In the present research, we consider instead how speaking out against racial prejudice shapes people’s impressions of a confronter’s racial identity, such as experiences with discrimination, stereotype enactment, and even phenotype. Two experiments found that White perceivers evaluated a Black/White biracial person who spoke out against (vs. remained silent to) racial prejudice as more stigmatized and Black identified and as having more stereotypically Black (vs. White) preferences and Black (vs. White) ancestry when they confronted. The faces of biracial confronters (vs. nonconfronters) were also recalled as more phenotypically Black (vs. White; S2). This evidence suggests that speaking out against bias colors Whites’ impressions of a biracial target across both subjective and objective measures of racial identity. Implications for interracial interactions and interpersonal perception are discussed.

Keywords

racial identity prejudice/stereotyping multiracial identity intergroup relations impression formation

Overt prejudice, such as comments that endorse racial stereotypes or jokes with racist undertones, persists in intergroup interactions (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005; Sue, 2010; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003) and may even be on the rise (Lichtblau, 2016). Therefore, it is critical to understand both the drivers and consequences of speaking out to address prejudice. The prejudice confrontation literature has documented when and why people confront bias and how to do so effectively (Good, Moss-Racusin, & Sanchez, 2012; Rattan & Dweck, 2010; Stone, Whitehead, Schmader, & Focella, 2011). It has also explored the intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of speaking out to address bias for both targets and observers. This work has focused on members of stigmatized groups (e.g., monoracial minorities; women) engaged in intergroup interactions and majority group members responding to in-group members’ bias. It has also primarily considered the effectiveness of the confrontation, the ease of the interaction (e.g., levels of anger or hostility), or the interpersonal evaluations outside the realm of race (e.g., how positively the confronter is rated; Czopp, Monteith, & Mark, 2006; Kaiser & Miller, 2001, 2003; Schultz & Maddox, 2013; Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, & Hill, 2006; Swim & Hyers, 1999; Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001). The present research extends this important work in two ways. First, we explore the consequences of speaking out for biracial individuals who hold both minority and majority group identities, a group that has to date been overlooked by prejudice confrontation research. Second, we explore a novel consequence of speaking out to address bias. Specifically, we explore how speaking out against bias constructs in observers’ minds important facets of a biracial individual’s racial identity, including experiences with discrimination, stereotype enactment, and even phenotype.

The Consequences of Condemning Bias

Speaking out against bias is an important vehicle for prejudice reduction (Rokeach, 1973). For example, after being confronted for displaying prejudice, perpetrators stereotype and express less prejudice (Czopp et al., 2006). However, people often do not confront prejudice when the opportunity arises, even if they believe they will (Kawakami, Dunn, Karmali, & Dovidio, 2009; Swim & Hyers, 1999).

When people do speak out against bias, targeted group members are particularly derogated and disliked, while antibias messages are received more smoothly when they come from majority group members (Munger, 2016). People derogate racial minorities who confront discrimination, labeling them as “complainers” and evaluating them negatively (Kaiser & Miller, 2001, 2003), yet individuals still expect racial minorities to speak out when bias occurs (Crosby, Monin, & Richardson, 2008). In contrast, when White actors speak out to address bias, people feel less discomfort and annoyance than when racial minorities engage in the same action (Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Gulker, Mark, & Monteith, 2013; Schultz & Maddox, 2013). This is particularly the case when White perceivers evaluate the confronter.

To date, research has only explored the impression formation consequences of confronting racism in the context of monoracial identity, and scholars know nothing about the consequences of confronting in the context of biracial identity. However, biracial individuals are among the fastest-growing U.S. and UK population segments, and they are most commonly members of both targeted and nontargeted groups (Gaither, 2015; Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). As noted above, existing research suggests that a confronter’s racial identity is intimately related to perceivers’ responses. This raises theoretical and practical questions concerning how interpersonal perception processes unfold when biracial individuals confront (or remain silent to) expressions of prejudice. Given that speaking out to address bias has such potential for positive intergroup consequences—but that there are also many challenges to harnessing this potential—efforts to uncover a more complete understanding of the consequences of experiencing and censuring bias among individuals who are subject to it are vital.

We consider a new consequence of speaking out to address bias: shifting perceptions of racial identity. We focus on perceptions of racial identity as outcomes because the consequences of being perceived as more minority in terms of racial identification or physical appearance are serious for racial minorities. For example, African Americans who have higher levels of racial identification endure more racial discrimination (Kaiser & Pratt-Hyatt, 2009; Sellers & Shelton, 2003). Darker skin tone is also associated with greater social rejection and negative stereotyping (Hebl, Williams, Sundermann, Kell, & Davies, 2012; Maddox & Gray, 2002). Similarly, being stereotyped, even in a “positive” manner, can negatively impact individuals (Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000; Shih, Ambady, Richeson, Fujita, & Gray, 2002). If the consequences of confronting prejudice relate to group memberships, then understanding the consequences of confronting prejudice for biracials centers on first understanding how others view their racial identity if they speak out.

We propose that, because the act of confronting racial bias is normatively a behavior more associated with minority (vs. majority) group members (e.g., Crosby et al., 2008; Gulker, et al., 2013), observers may view biracials who confront bias as “more minority.” Although people tend to believe that race cannot be shifted (Smedley & Smedley, 2005), perceptions of biracials’ race can be malleable (Gaither, 2015). Thus, this research also extends work on the interpersonal perception of racial identity, which encompasses social perception generally and biracial identity perception more specifically. It also contributes to challenging existing assumptions that have developed based on decades of research in intergroup relations that has largely focused on monoracials (cf. Shih & Sanchez, 2005).

Current Research

The current research examined whether speaking out about racial inequality shapes Whites’ perceptions of White/Minority biracials’ race. We hypothesized that speaking out against prejudice (vs. remaining silent) would cause observers to construe biracial individuals as more minority. This prediction was tested in two experiments that operationalized race perceptions using subjective measures, including impressions of a biracial individual’s minority identity affiliation (S1), stereotypical preferences (e.g., music, friendships, and S1), White and minority ancestry (S2), and racial stigmatization (S1–2). The research also explored whether prejudice confrontation would similarly shift Whites’ objective perceptions of biracial faces (S2). If so, this pattern would suggest that prejudice confrontation is seen as a minority prototype. All together, we expected to find that prejudice confrontation colors Whites’ perceptions of biracials’ race.

To assess whether shifting perceptions of race are unique to biracials, rather than all racial minorities, we also assessed Whites’ perceptions of a Black monoracial person who either speaks out or remains silent after a prejudice incident. We did not include a White target for comparison because our hypothesis was directional: We predicted that biracials would be viewed as more minority if they confronted. All study measures and manipulations are reported and posted¹ on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/gs37r/

Study 1

Study 1 hypothesized that when White perceivers observe a Black/White biracial person confront a specific instance of racism (vs. remain silent), they will view him as more identified with his Black identity. It also explored whether they would assume he has experienced more stigmatization, an experience associated with minority (and particularly Black) identity (Kaiser & Pratt-Hyatt, 2009; Sanchez, Good, & Chavez, 2011). It also investigated the extent to which prejudice confrontation leads Whites to apply minority group stereotypes to biracial people, in this case, stereotypes about Black American’s preferences for athletics (Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999), music (Phelan & Rudman, 2010), and friendship networks (Wout, Murphy, & Steele, 2010). These three dimensions of stereotyping were selected because they are not overtly negative and thus less likely to be affected by social desirability concerns.

Participants

Based on an a priori power analysis seeking to capture 80% statistical power and medium effect size f (.25) for a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), our goal was to recruit a minimum of 128 undergraduates in a single wave before analyzing the data. One hundred thirty White undergraduates completed the study in their classrooms in exchange for extra credit. Three participants were excluded from analyses for failing to pass a manipulation check (see below), leaving a final sample of 127 (M_age = 22.57, SD_age = 4.67; 68.5% female) participants.

Procedure

The research employed a 2 (race condition: Black vs. biracial) × 2 (confront condition: confront vs. no confront) between-subjects design with participants randomly assigned to condition. Upon providing informed consent, participants were told they would review and form impressions of a student at another U.S. university based only on a short background information sheet and personal essay; these materials were previously validated by past research on prejudice confrontation (Kaiser, Hagiwara, Malahy, & Wilkins, 2009). Participants were told that the student completed this information as a part of a previous experiment. To bolster the story, the student’s last name and college dormitory were ostensibly anonymized. Participants were told to pay close attention to this background information, as they would be asked questions about it later. Of course, these materials were used to convey the experimental manipulations.

Other than the experimental manipulations of race and confrontation, all information presented about the student was the same across conditions. He was always described as a 19-year-old male named Will whose responses to a short survey on college life indicated he was adjusting well. The race manipulation was presented among other demographic information. In the Black condition, the student selected only the “Black/African American” box, and in the biracial condition, he selected both the “Black/African American” and “White/Caucasian” boxes. In response to the prompt, “please write about a significant life experience,” the student’s short essay always described a situation in which an acquaintance made unambiguously racist comments (e.g., questioning why Black students were moving into a dorm that housed several honors students) at a college party. In both conditions, the student identified the comments as racist and disagreed with what was said; however, the student either described himself as confronting (confront condition) or remaining silent despite disagreeing (no confront condition) with the biased statement. After reviewing this information, participants completed a short manipulation check to ensure that they correctly remembered the target’s race and gender. Then, they evaluated the target on all dependent measures described below as well as filler items (e.g., favorite movie or book and personality characteristics) unrelated to the present hypotheses designed to mask our interest in race impressions. Finally, participants reported their age, gender, and race and were fully debriefed.

Materials

The scale anchors for all dependent measures were 1 (not at all likely) and 7 (extremely likely).

Perceived Black identification (α = .96; 3 items)

Participants indicated the extent to which they viewed the target as identifying with his Black identity by responding to the following three questions: “How strongly do you think the author identifies with being Black?,” “To what degree do you think the author identifies with being Black?,” and “How strongly do you think the author sees himself as being Black?”

Perceived stigmatization (α = .90, 3 items)

Participants indicated the extent to which they expected he had been a target of racial discrimination by indicating how likely or not the target “experienced a lot of racial discrimination,” “encounters a lot of racial prejudice,” and “has likely experienced racial discrimination.”

Perceived Black stereotypicality (α = .77; 7 items)

Participants indicated the extent to which they ascribed preferences stereotypically associated with Black identity to the student. Five items assessed how much participants applied stereotypes commonly associated with Black identity, including sports, music, and friendship preferences (e.g., “How likely is it that the author’s favorite music is rap?”) and 2 items tapped into cultural stereotypes commonly associated with White identity (e.g., “How likely is it that Will’s favorite music is rock n’ roll?”). The White stereotyping items were reverse coded and scores were calculated such that higher scores indicate greater Black identity.

Results

Preliminary analyses revealed that participant gender was unrelated to the main results; women viewed the Black student as more stigmatized than the biracial student, p = .01, and all other main effects and interactions with participant gender were nonsignificant, ps > .10.

Turning to our focal analyses, to examine whether confronting racism affected Whites’ race perceptions, ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent measure, with race condition and confronting condition as the between-subjects factors. All interactions are interpreted with least significant difference (LSD) post hoc analyses; significant interactions are graphed in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Interaction of race condition and confronting condition on perceived Black identification, perceived stigmatization, and perceived stereotypicality; error bars represent standard errors. ps ≤ .01.

Perceived Black Identification

There were two significant main effects of race, F(1, 123) = 11.44, p = .001, d = .56, and confronting, F(1, 123) = 15.32, p < .001, d = .65, condition. However, the predicted interaction between race and confrontation conditions, F(1, 123) = 3.79, p = .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03, qualified these main effects. As expected, White observers viewed the biracial student as more Black identified when he confronted (M = 5.38, SD = .88) versus remained silent (M = 4.15, SD = 1.34), p < .001, d = 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) [.64, 1.82]. Confronting (M = 5.68, SD = 1.34) versus remaining silent (M = 5.26, SD = 1.11) did not affect perceptions of the Black student’s Black identification, p = .17. Additional analyses showed that, in the no-confrontation condition, observers rated the Black student as more Black identified than the biracial student, p < .001, d = .90, 95% CI [.54, 1.70]. In the confront condition, participants did not view the Black and biracial student as differently Black identified, p = .32.

Perceived Stigmatization

Two significant main effects of race, F(1, 123) = 4.46, p = .04, d = .36, and confronting, F(1, 123) = 5.37, p = .02, d = .39, condition emerged. However, they were qualified by the predicted Race Condition × Confrontation Condition interaction, F(1, 123) = 4.00, p = .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03. As hypothesized, participants viewed the biracial student as more stigmatized when he confronted (M = 5.06, SD = 1.12) versus remained silent (M = 4.13, SD = 1.17), p = .003, d = .81, 95% CI [.33, 1.55]. Perceptions of the Black student’s stigmatization did not vary depending on whether he confronted (M = 5.09, SD = 1.17) or remained silent (M = 5.02, SD = 1.40), p = .82. Examining the data in another way, in the no-confrontation condition, the Black participant was viewed as more stigmatized than the biracial participant, p = .004, d = .69, 95% CI [.30, 1.49], whereas in the confront condition, the Black and biracial students were not viewed differently, p = .94.

Perceived Black Stereotypicality

Two significant main effects of race condition, F(1, 123) = 15.71, p < .001, d = .70, and confronting condition, F(1, 123) = 4.32, p = .04, d = .34, were found. As predicted, race condition and confronting condition also interacted significantly, F(1, 123) = 7.35, p = .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06. As expected, the biracial student was viewed as more stereotypically Black when he confronted (M = 4.29, SD = .58) versus remained silent (M = 3.66, SD = .87), p = .001, d = .85, 95% CI [−1.01, −.26]. The Black target’s perceived Black stereotypicality did not vary depending on whether he confronted (M = 4.46, SD = .65) or remained silent (M = 4.55, SD = .85), p = .66. Analyses also revealed that, in the no-confront condition, the Black participant was viewed as more stereotypically Black than the biracial participant, p < .001, d = 1.03, 95% CI [.52, 1.26], whereas the Black and biracial targets were not viewed differently in the confront condition, p = .39.

Discussion

Study 1 offers initial support for the hypothesis that addressing prejudice shifts Whites’ perceptions of biracial individuals’ race. When told he had confronted prejudice, Whites viewed a biracial student as more Black identified and stigmatized and attached more stereotypically Black preferences to him than when told he had remained silent. Shifting race perceptions were not found for the Black monoracial target. When the biracial person was described as having confronted prejudice, Whites’ impressions of his Black identification and experiences with stigmatization did not significantly differ from their impressions of the Black target.

Study 2

Study 2 sought to conceptually replicate and extend this research to test whether confronting prejudice also influences physical perceptions with an objective assessment of face perception. We predicted Whites would rate a biracial person who confronted prejudice (vs. remained silent) as more Black, both in terms of basic physical features and in terms of biological ancestry.

Participants

Again, our predetermined goal was to recruit a minimum of 128 undergraduates in a single wave before the end of term. One hundred forty-seven White undergraduates volunteered to participate in this study. Twenty-seven participants were excluded from analyses for failing to pass a manipulation check,² leaving a final sample of 120 (M_age = 20.10, SD_age = 2.28; 51.3% male) participants.

Procedure and Materials

Participants completed the study on a computer in a laboratory (on either a voluntary basis or for extra class credit). Study 2 followed the procedures of Study 1 for manipulating race (Black vs. biracial) and confrontation (confront vs. no confront) conditions. New to Study 2, they were shown a photograph of the student before they reviewed his background information. The photograph was always a 50/50 morph of a phenotypically White and a phenotypically Black face. This face represented the midpoint of a larger series of nine photographs ranging from 100% White to 100% Black phenotypicality in set increments (from Freeman, Pauker, & Sanchez, 2016). Because Study 2 participants completed the survey on a computer, they were able to look at the photograph for as long as they chose, but it was removed from participants’ view while they evaluated the student’s information and completed the dependent measures in the order listed below.

Perceived stigmatization

Participants completed the same measure from Study 1 (α = .85).

Objective facial judgment

Participants were shown the full array of all nine photographic morphs and were asked to identify the original photograph of the student (see Figure 2). The first photograph (1 on the scale) represented a phenotypically 100% Black/0% White morph, the middle photograph (5 on the scale) represented the phenotyically 50% Black/50% White morph and was the photo previously presented as the student, and the last photograph (9 on the scale) represented a phenotypically 0% Black/100% White morph. All intermediate photographs shifted in phenotypicality in set increments.

Figure 2.
These photographs show the nine faces, ranging in Black–White phenotypicality, that were shown to participants for the objective facial judgment measure. The photograph denoted with an asterisk () is the face that was identified to participants, as the target before they reviewed his information.

Perceived ancestry

Participants responded to the following question: “Which do you think best represents the target’s racial makeup?” The 11-scale anchors ranged in 10% increments from 0 (100% White/0% Black) to 10 (0% White/100% Black; modified from Sanchez et al., 2011).

Results

Preliminary analyses revealed that participant gender was unrelated to the main results; women viewed the student (regardless of his race) as more stigmatized than did men, p = .002, and all other main effects and interactions with participant gender were p > .13.

To examine whether the confronting racism affected Whites’ racial impressions of the target, ANOVAs were conducted separately on all dependent measures, with race condition and confronting condition as the between-subjects factors. All interactions are interpreted with LSD post hoc analyses; significant interactions are graphed in Figure 3.

Figure 3.
Interaction of race condition and confronting condition on perceived stigmatization, facial judgment, and perceived ancestry; error bars represent standard errors. *ps ≤ .01.

Perceived Stigmatization

There was a significant main effect of confronting condition, F(1, 116) = 13.80, p < .001, d = .69, but not race condition, F(1, 116) = .07, p = .79. Notably, the predicted interaction between race condition and confronting condition, F(1, 116) = 8.43, p = .004, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .07, emerged. As expected, the biracial student was viewed as more stigmatized when he confronted (M = 5.51, SD = 1.25) versus did not confront (M = 4.24, SD = 1.06) the perpetrator, p < .001, d = 1.10, 95% CI [.76, 1.80]. Perceptions of the Black student’s stigmatization did not vary depending on whether he confronted (M = 4.90, SD = .82) or remained silent (M = 4.74, SD = 1.03), p = .58. Examining the interaction in another way, in the no-confront condition, the Black target was viewed as more stigmatized than the biracial target, p = .07, d = .48, 95% CI [−.03, 1.05], though this effect did not reach significance. New to Study 2, we also found that in the confront condition, the biracial student was rated as more stigmatized than the Black student, p = .03, d = .58, 95% CI [−1.15, −.07].

Objective Facial Judgments

There was a significant main effect of confronting condition, F(1, 116) = 12.99, p < .001, d = .68, but not of race condition, F(1, 116) = .76, p = .39. Importantly, the predicted significant interaction between race condition and confronting condition emerged, F(1, 116) = 18.52, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .14. As hypothesized, the biracial student was remembered as having more phenotypically Black features when he confronted bias (M = 5.80, SD = 1.30) versus remained silent (M = 4.26, SD = .83), p < .001, d = 1.41, 95% CI [1.01, 2.06]. Perceptions of the Black student’s phenotype did not vary depending on whether he confronted (M = 5.13, SD = 1.17) or remained silent (M = 5.27, SD = .87), p = .63. That is, participants accurately remembered the Black student’s face regardless of condition, but they misremembered the biracial student’s face depending on whether or not he spoke out against bias. Examining the interaction in another way, in the no-confrontation condition, the Black student was remembered as having more phenotypically Black features than the biracial student, p < .001, d = 1.19, 95% CI [.46, 1.55]. Consistent with the pattern of data observed for the perceived discrimination variable, we also found that in the confront condition, the biracial student was also remembered as having darker skin tone than the Black student, p = .02, d = .54, 95% CI [−1.21, −.13].

Perceived Ancestry

Two significant main effects of confronting condition, F(1, 116) = 11.00, p = .001, d = .63, and race condition, F(1, 116) = 3.78, p = .05, d = .37, emerged. The hypothesized interaction between race condition and confronting condition, F(1, 116) = 10.36, p = .002, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .08, was significant. As expected, the biracial student was evaluated as having greater Black/African American ancestry when he confronted (M = 7.20, SD = 1.92) versus remained silent (M = 5.15, SD = 1.60), p < .001, d = 1.16, 95% CI [1.20, 2.90]. Ancestry perceptions of the Black student did not vary by confronting condition (M_confront = 6.80, SD_confront = 1.86, vs. M_silent = 6.77, SD_silent = 1.39), p = .95. Additionally, pairwise comparisons revealed that when they remained silent, the Black student was perceived as having greater Black/African American ancestry than the biracial target, p < .001, d = 1.08, 95% CI [.74, 2.51]. The Black and biracial students did not vary in perceived ancestry when they confronted, p = .37.

Discussion

Study 2 suggests that speaking out against bias shifts Whites’ perceptions of biracial individuals’ physicalized race. When Whites were told that a biracial student spoke out against prejudice, they remembered his face as being more phenotypically Black, compared to when they were told he had remained silent. These perceivers also estimated that the biracial person who confronted (vs. remained silent) had greater amounts of Black (vs. White) ancestry.

General Discussion

The present research showed that Black/White biracial individuals are viewed as more Black when they speak up to address racial bias. Study 1 found that White observers viewed a biracial person who spoke out (vs. stayed silent) against racial bias to be more Black identified and to have experienced more discrimination. It further found that Whites ascribed more stereotypically Black preferences to the biracial person when he was described as confronting prejudice rather than remaining silent. Study 2 investigated how physicalized these effects might be. It found that confronting shaped Whites’ impressions of the biracial student’s racial ancestry and their perception of what he looked like. Indeed, when they learned he had confronted prejudice just once, Whites recalled the student as more phenotypically Black and also estimated that they had more Black ancestry.

These studies explore for the first time people’s responses to biracial’ prejudice confrontation and offer new insights into how prejudice confrontation can impact perceived racial identity. Given that group memberships exert meaningful influence on both the effectiveness of and backlash from confronting prejudice, understanding how biracials’ perceived group memberships shift as a function of their confronting behavior was an essential first step. Our results suggest that biracial individuals, like monoracial minorities, may face negative evaluations when they confront, and investigating this directly is a natural next step for future research. They also identify shifting race perceptions as a unique consequence of confronting for biracial targets; observers’ impressions of a Black individual did not vary based on whether he spoke out or remained silent.

This research also suggests that confronting racial prejudice may be viewed as a minority prototype and as distanced from the concept of Whiteness. Indeed, this research consistently found that when the biracial and Black student were described as confronting racism, they were viewed as equally Black identified and stigmatized and as having similarly stereotypically Black preferences. Perceivers only distinguished between the Black and biracial student when he was described as not having confronted bias; when he was silent in the face of bias, observers evaluated the biracial person as less Black identified and less stigmatized and as having fewer stereotypically Black preferences and less Black ancestry than the Black person. Thus, the present research may highlight a previously unidentified barrier to racial progress; future studies should investigate whether the psychological separation of “confronting” and “Whiteness” may be one factor driving Whites’ reluctance to confront racial bias.

Furthermore, in the existing racial prototypicality literature, researchers have examined how looking more or less like a typical group member affects the way racial minorities are treated (e.g., Hebl et al., 2012; Maddox & Gray, 2002). Rather, our works suggests that prototypicality judgments may occur even sooner, before perceivers see a target, if perceivers are exposed to social information about the target’s actions in different situations (e.g., gossip). Our work also suggests that prototypicality judgments are shaped by behaviors, not just phenotypic physical characteristics. By definition, the biracial target did not exhibit high phenotypical stereotypicality, but the present results suggest that White perceivers viewed speaking out to address prejudice as “acting Black,” to enough of a degree that it even shaded this physical perception. This is important because people may be reluctant to confront prejudice, when they know confrontation may risk being stereotyped or subsumed into the stereotype of prejudiced targets (e.g., Kroeper, Sanchez, & Himmelstein, 2014).

The present research presents an essential first step in understanding the dynamics at play when biracial individuals address prejudice. Future research should address some of the limitations of the current research by examining whether or not the effects observed in the present research would also be observed in actual interpersonal interactions involving direct confrontations of racial bias. It should also examine whether biracial individuals, like monoracial minorities, are dismissed as complainers and thus less effective confronters than majority group members (Kaiser & Miller, 2001, 2003), and whether or not these effects would generalize to perceptions of biracial individuals with other component racial identities (e.g., White/Asian biracials) or among non-White perceivers. Research could also explore how biracial individuals experience their racial identity when confronting bias or staying silent or whether Whites might evaluate and experience positive messages about racial equality (rather than negative messages about racial discrimination) that come from biracial targets as less threatening. Research should also explore potential mediators to explain why White perceivers view biracial candidates as more Black. For example, a study could directly test whether a measure assessing the perceived psychological disconnect between “confronting” and “Whiteness” discussed above—such as normative beliefs about who should confront racism—accounts for the relationship between confronting and perceived Blackness. Additionally, given that previous research finds that individuals respond more positively to confrontations that come from members of their own racial group, future research should explore individual characteristics or ideologies that might prevent Whites from viewing biracial individuals as out-group members when they address prejudice.

Conclusion

This research considered for the first time the unique psychological dynamics that arise when biracial individuals speak out to address prejudice. It found that confronting racial prejudice colored Whites’ perceptions of White/Black biracial individuals’ race. In doing so, this extends the study of prejudice confrontation, person perception, and intergroup processes literatures in both theoretically and practically important ways.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available at .

References

Cheryan

Bodenhausen

G. V.

(2000). When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual performance: The psychological hazards of “model minority” status. Psychological Science, 11, 399–402.

Crosby

J. R.

Monin

Richardson

(2008). Where do we look during potentially offensive behavior? Psychological Science, 19, 226–228. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02072.x

Czopp

A. M.

Monteith

M. J.

(2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 532–544. doi:10.1177/0146167202250923

Czopp

A. M.

Monteith

M. J.

Mark

A. Y.

(2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 784–803. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.784

Freeman

J. B.

Pauker

Sanchez

D. T.

(2016). A perceptual pathway to bias: Interracial exposure reduces abrupt shifts in real-time race perception that predict mixed-race bias. Psychological Science. 27, 502–517. doi:10.1177/0956797615627418

Gaertner

S. L.

Dovidio

J. F.

(2005). Understanding and addressing contemporary racism: From aversive racism to the Common Ingroup Identity Model. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 615–639. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00424.x

Gaither

S. E

. (2015). “Mixed” results: Multiracial research and identity explorations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 114–119. doi:10.1177/0963721414558115

Good

J. J.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

Sanchez

D. T.

(2012). When do we confront: Perceptions of costs and benefits predict confronting discrimination on behalf of the self and others. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 210–226.

Gulker

J. E.

Mark

A. Y.

Monteith

M. J.

(2013). Confronting prejudice: The who, what, and why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8, 280–293. doi:10.1080/15534510.2012.736879

10.

Hebl

M. R.

Williams

M. J.

Sundermann

J. M.

Kell

H. J.

Davies

P. G.

(2012). Selectively friending: Racial stereotypicality and social rejection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1329–1335. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.019

11.

Humes

Jones

N. A.

Ramirez

R. R.

(2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin, 2010. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.

12.

Kaiser

C. R.

Hagiwara

Malahy

L. W.

Wilkins

C. L.

(2009). Group identification moderates attitudes toward ingroup members who confront discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 770–777. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.027

13.

Kaiser

C. R.

Miller

C. T.

(2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263. doi:10.1177/0146167201272010

14.

Kaiser

C. R.

Miller

C. T.

(2003). Derogating the victim: The interpersonal consequences of blaming events on discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 227–237. doi:10.1177/13684302030063001

15.

Kaiser

C. R.

Pratt-Hyatt

J. S.

(2009). Distributing prejudice unequally: Do Whites direct their prejudice toward strongly identified minorities? Journal of Personality and Social Psychological, 96, 432–445. doi:10.1037/a0012877

16.

Kawakami

Dunn

Karmali

Dovidio

J. F.

(2009). Mispredicting affective and behavioral responses to racism. Science, 323, 276–278. doi:10.1126/science.1164951

17.

Kroeper

K. M.

Sanchez

D. T.

Himmelstein

M. S

. (2014). Heterosexual men’s confrontation of sexual prejudice: The role of precarious manhood. Sex Roles, 70, 1–13. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0306-z.

18.

Lichtblau

(2016, 11). Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crimes-muslims.html?_r=1

19.

Maddox

K. B.

Gray

S. A.

(2002). Cognitive representations of Black Americans: Reexploring the role of skin tone. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 250–259. doi:10.1177/0146167202282010

20.

Munger

. (2016). Tweetment effects on the tweeted: Experimentally reducing racist harassment. Political Behavior. doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9373-5

21.

Phelan

J. E.

Rudman

L. A.

(2010). Reactions to ethnic deviance: The role of backlash in racial stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 265–281. doi:10.1037/a0018304

22.

Rattan

Dweck

C. S.

(2010). Who confronts prejudice? The role of implicit theories in the motivation to confront prejudice. Psychological Science, 21, 952–959. doi:10.1177/0956797610374740

23.

Rokeach

(1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.

24.

Sanchez

D. T.

Good

J. J.

Chavez

G. F.

(2011). Blood quantum and perceptions of Black-White Biracial targets: The Black Ancestry Prototype model of affirmative action. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 3–14. doi:10.1177/0146167210389473

25.

Schultz

J. R.

Maddox

K. B.

(2013). Shooting the messenger to spite the message? Exploring reactions to claims of racial bias. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 346–358. doi:10.1177/0146167212475223

26.

Sellers

R. M.

Shelton

J. N.

(2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1079–1092. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1079

27.

Shelton

J. N.

Richeson

J. A

Salvatore

Hill

D. M.

(2006). Silence is not golden: The intrapersonal consequences of not confronting prejudice. In Levin

Van Laar

(Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 65–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

28.

Shih

Ambady

Richeson

J. A.

Fujita

Gray

H. M.

(2002). Stereotype performance boosts: The impact of self-relevance and the manner of stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 638–647. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.638

29.

Shih

Sanchez

D. T.

(2005). Perspectives and research on the positive and negative implications of having multiple racial identities. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 569–591. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.569

30.

Smedley

B. D.

(2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. American Psychologist, 60, 16–26. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.16

31.

Stone

Lynch

C. I.

Sjomeling

Darley

J. M

. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

32.

Stone

Whitehead

Schmader

Focella

(2011). Thanks for asking: Self-affirming questions reduce backlash when stigmatized targets confront prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 589–598. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.016

33.

Sue

D. W.

(2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

34.

Swim

J. K.

Hyers

L. L.

(1999). Excuse me—What did you just say?!: Women’s public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 68–88. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1370

35.

Swim

J. K.

Hyers

L. L.

Cohen

L. L.

Fitzgerald

D. C.

Bylsma

W. H.

(2003). African American college students’ experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and responses to these incidents. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 38–67. doi:10.1177/0095798402239228

36.

Woodzicka

J. A.

LaFrance

(2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 15–30. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00199

37.

Wout

D. A.

Murphy

M. C.

Steele

C. M.

(2010). When your friends matter: The effect of White students’ racial friendship networks on meta-perceptions and perceived identity contingencies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1035–1041. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.003