No abstract

The authors examined White and Black participants' emotional, physiological, and behavioral responses to same-race or different-race evaluators, following rejecting social feedback or accepting social feedback. As expected, in ingroup interactions, the authors observed deleterious responses to social rejection and benign responses to social acceptance. Deleterious responses included cardiovascular (CV) reactivity consistent with threat states and poorer performance, whereas benign responses included CV reactivity consistent with challenge states and better performance. In intergroup interactions, however, a more complex pattern of responses emerged. Social rejection from different-race evaluators engendered more anger and activational responses, regardless of participants' race. In contrast, social acceptance produced an asymmetrical race pattern-White participants responded more positively than did Black participants. The latter appeared vigilant and exhibited threat responses. Discussion centers on implications for attributional ambiguity theory and potential pathways from discrimination to health outcomes. Keywords intergroup interactions; discrimination; attributional ambiguity; emotion and stress responses; cardiovascular reactivityResponses to social rejection and social acceptance may seem obvious-the former is bad and the latter is good. However, this simple heuristic may not be relevant for all social interactions, especially interracial ones. Social rejection by an outgroup member (i.e., different-race partner) may be construed a variety of ways, including a sense that one's self was rejected, that one's group was rejected, or that one's partner was biased (e.g., racist). Ingroup rejection, in contrast, is unlikely to be interpreted at a group level and is more likely to engender a person-level attribution (e.g., self-blame). Social acceptance may also not be straightforward. To be sure, social acceptance by an ingroup member is likely to be perceived positively and to instill good feelings. However, social acceptance by an outgroup member may be viewed cautiously, with NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript individuals questioning the genuineness of the evaluation, possibly undermining the positive feelings typically associated with social acceptance. In this research, we explored how social rejection and acceptance are perceived, are responded to, and affect an ongoing social interaction between same-race or different-race interaction partners. Intraracial Interactions Versus Interracial InteractionsSocial interactions with partners of different races have been known to produce stress, threat, and anxiety (e.g., Ickes, 1984;Mendes, Blascovich, Lickel, & Hunter, 2002;Stephan & Stephan, 2000). A growing body of research has demonstrated that individuals interacting with or exposed to outgroup members exhibit more negatively toned responses. For example, White participants engaged in cooperative social interactions with Black partners exhibited cardiovascular ...

Two studies tested the prediction that group identification (importance of the group in the self-concept) moderates the impact of perceived discrimination on self-evaluative emotions (depression and self-esteem). In Study 1, women low in gender identification experienced less depressed emotion and higher self-esteem if a negative evaluation was due to sexism than when it was not. The self-evaluative emotions of women high in gender identification were not buffered by attributions to sexism. In Study 2, ethnic identification and depressed emotions were positively related when Latino-Americans read about pervasive prejudice against the ingroup but were negatively related when they read about prejudice against an outgroup. Both studies demonstrated that for highly group identified individuals, prejudice against the ingroup is a threat against the self. Thus, the self-protective strategy of attributing negative feedback to discrimination may be primarily effective for individuals who do not consider the group a central aspect of self.

It was hypothesized that relative group status and endorsement of ideologies that legitimize group status differences moderate attributions to discrimination in intergroup encounters. According to the status-legitimacy hypothesis, the more members of low-status groups endorse the ideology of individual mobility, the less likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from higher status group members to discrimination. In contrast, the more members of high-status groups endorse individual mobility, the more likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from lower status group members to discrimination. Results from 3 studies using 2 different methodologies provide support for this hypothesis among members of different high-status (European Americans and men) and low-status (African Americans, Latino Americans, and women) groups.

In 3 studies, the authors tested the hypothesis that discrimination targets' worldview moderates the impact of perceived discrimination on self-esteem among devalued groups. In Study 1, perceiving discrimination against the ingroup was negatively associated with self-esteem among Latino Americans who endorsed a meritocracy worldview (e.g., believed that individuals of any group can get ahead in America and that success stems from hard work) but was positively associated with self-esteem among those who rejected this worldview. Study 2 showed that exposure to discrimination against their ingroup (vs. a non-self-relevant group) led to lower self-esteem, greater feelings of personal vulnerability, and ingroup blame among Latino Americans who endorsed a meritocracy worldview but to higher selfesteem and decreased ingroup blame among Latino Americans who rejected it. Study 3 showed that compared with women informed that prejudice against their ingroup is pervasive, women informed that prejudice against their ingroup is rare had higher self-esteem if they endorsed a meritocracy worldview but lower self-esteem if they rejected this worldview. Findings support the idea that perceiving discrimination against one's ingroup threatens the worldview of individuals who believe that status in society is earned but confirms the worldview of individuals who do not.