“What About Me?”
Perceptions of Exclusion and Whites’ Reactions to Multiculturalism
Victoria C. Plaut
University of California, Berkeley
Flannery G. Garnett
University of Michigan
Laura E. Buffardi
Universidad de Deusto
Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks
University of Michigan
A 5-study investigation of reactions of dominant group members (i.e., White Americans) to diversity
(relative to racial minority reactions) provides evidence of implicit and explicit associations between
multiculturalism and exclusion and of a relationship between perceived exclusion and reactions to
diversity. In Study 1, Whites but not racial minorities were faster in an implicit association task at pairing
multiculturalism with exclusion than with inclusion. This association diminished in Study 2 through a
subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups, including European Americans. In Study
3, in a “Me/Not Me” task, Whites were less likely than minorities to pair multiculturalism concepts with
the self and were slower in responding to multiculturalism concepts. Furthermore, associating multicul-
turalism with the self (Study 3) or feeling included in organizational diversity (Study 4) predicted Whites’
endorsement of diversity and also accounted for the oft-cited group status difference in support for
diversity initiatives. Study 5 showed that individual differences in need to belong moderated Whites’
interest in working for organizations that espouse a multicultural versus a color-blind approach to
diversity, with individuals higher in need to belong less attracted to organizations with a multicultural
approach. Overall, results show that the purportedly “inclusive” ideology of multiculturalism is not
perceived as such by Whites. This may, in part, account for their lower support for diversity efforts in
education and work settings.
Keywords: diversity, multiculturalism, color blindness, inclusion, need to belong
Our vision: A strong and prosperous nation secured through a
fair and inclusive workplace.
—U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The United States, at first glance, is a country obsessed with
managing diversity (Cose, 1997; Jackson, 2008). Governmental
and nongovernmental organizations alike (e.g., the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], the American In-
stitute for Managing Diversity) put forth great effort to manage
diversity and promote equality. Companies and universities have
followed suit by designing and implementing a wide range of
diversity initiatives, for example, diversity mission statements
displayed in brochures, diversity training, diversity-targeted re-
cruitment advertising, diversity resource groups, and celebration of
events highlighting different racial and ethnic groups. However,
efforts at promoting diversity and inclusion are often met with
negative reactions by White Americans, potentially due to concern
about the actual noninclusivity of those efforts. Reflecting this
concern, historian Arthur Schlesinger (1992) remarked in The
Disuniting of America, “Multiculturalism arises as a reaction
against Anglo- or Eurocentrism; but at what point does it mutate
into an ethnocentrism of its own?” (p. 80). A similar reaction
reverberated through the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose ability to judge from a neutral,
nonethnic perspective was repeatedly questioned. This purported
noninclusivity of multiculturalism has similarly surfaced more
generally among university students and working adults in corpo-
rate settings (e.g., Chrobot-Mason, Hays-Thomas, & Wishik,
2008; Hewitt, 2005). The majority of these individuals are domi-
nant group members whose support is critical for diversity initia-
tives to work effectively.
Against this backdrop of concerns about the mounting attention
given to diversity, organizations have grown increasingly emphatic
in arguing for the necessity of diversity efforts. For instance, John
Bryan, former chairman and CEO of Sara Lee Corporation, has
This article was published Online First May 2, 2011.
Victoria C. Plaut, School of Law, University of California, Berkeley;
Flannery G. Garnett and Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks, Ross School of Business,
University of Michigan; Laura E. Buffardi, Departamento de Psicologı´a,
Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao, Spain.
We thank Art Brief, Keith Campbell, Rob MacCoun, Hazel Rose
Markus, David Oppenheimer, Kecia Thomas, and Miguel Unzueta for
constructive feedback on earlier drafts; Berkeley Law faculty workshop
and Institute of Personality and Social Research colloquium audiences for
helpful comments; Alem Tecle and Leslie Stone for assistance with man-
uscript preparation; and members of the Center for Research and Engage-
ment in Diversity and the Culture, Diversity, and Intergroup Relations Lab,
including Betsy Carstensen, Katie Hale, Pierce Hale, Walker Jones, Allison
Starks, and Sophia Szombathy, for help with data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Victoria C. Plaut, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Simon
Hall 591, Berkeley, CA 94720-7200. E-mail: vplaut@law.berkeley.edu
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association
2011, Vol. 101, No. 2, 337–353 0022-3514/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0022832
337
argued that “diversity is a strategic business imperative. A policy
of inclusion is essential.” Anne Mulcahy, former CEO of Xerox,
has similarly remarked that “diversity . . . is about inclusion.
Diversity means creating an environment where all employees can
grow to their fullest potential.” However, organizations with pur-
ported missions of diversity and inclusion often struggle to gain
the necessary support among dominant group members (see
Thomas, 2008), raising the disconcerting prospect that these ef-
forts will lack effectiveness. Indeed, diversity resistance has been
documented at the individual and organizational levels in a wide
range of behaviors, practices, and policies (Thomas & Plaut,
2008). If, as acknowledged by the EEOC and those leading some
of the world’s largest business organizations, diversity is truly
about inclusion, then why might it be met with resistance among
Whites? That is, why do Whites consistently trail minorities in
endorsement of diversity efforts (e.g., E. H. James, Brief, Dietz, &
Cohen, 2001; Ryan, Hunt, Weible, Peterson, & Casas, 2007;
Wolsko, Park, & Judd, 2006)?
1
Negative sentiments concerning intergroup dynamics are typi-
cally attributed to factors such as ethnocentrism, prejudice, and
in-group bias (e.g., Hirschfeld, 1996; E. H. James et al., 2001;
Sanchez-Burks, Nisbett, & Ybarra, 2000; Sidanius, 1993; Stephan,
1985; Zanna & Olson, 1994). Moreover, research has demon-
strated that perceived losses in social dominance and status con-
tribute to majority group members’ aversion to efforts addressing
racial inequality (e.g., Eibach & Keegan, 2006; Knowles, Lowery,
Hogan, & Chow, 2009; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). We turn to
another set of explanatory factors, complementary to these expla-
nations, that is typically overlooked in the intergroup literature.
Our studies examine antecedents to Whites’ reactions to multicul-
turalism that are rooted in the basic social psychological need for
inclusion and belonging. Our presumption is that to the extent that
multiculturalism emphasizes the cultures, contributions, and in-
volvement of minorities— or is coded as “only for minorities”—
Whites will feel excluded from and less supportive of these efforts.
We describe five studies that provide evidence that Whites implic-
itly associate multiculturalism with exclusion rather than inclusion
and that these associations, along with individual differences in
need to belong (NTB; Baumeister & Leary, 1995), help account
for Whites’ resistance to endorsing diversity efforts.
2
Diversity Models
Our theoretical focus builds upon recent research that used a
cultural psychological lens to show how cultural ideologies shape
various aspects of intergroup relations (e.g., Heine & Norenzayan,
2006; Knowles et al., 2009; Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009;
Sanchez-Burks, Bartel, & Blount, 2009). Two cultural ideologies
dominate the American lexicon of diversity: multiculturalism and
color blindness (see Park & Judd, 2005; Plaut, 2010; Wolsko,
Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000). These ideologies, referred to
here as diversity models, represent implicit and explicit systems of
ideas, meanings, and practices that suggest how groups should
include and accommodate one another and how to best organize a
diverse society (Berry, 1984; Markus, Steele, & Steele, 2000;
Plaut, 2002). The color-blind model, exemplified by the metaphor
of the “melting pot” in American society, emphasizes that people
are basically the same, that racial categories should be ignored or
avoided, and that differences based on social identity should be
assimilated into an overarching unifying category. In contrast, the
multicultural model—illustrated by the metaphor of a mosaic
whose individual pieces are distinct yet together form a coherent
picture— explicitly acknowledges differences among groups and
promotes the notion that differences associated with social identi-
ties should be valued and even celebrated.
The color-blind model resonates with prominent American ide-
als, such as individualism and meritocracy (Thomas, Mack, &
Montagliani, 2004), and is sometimes viewed by dominant group
members as a mechanism for decreasing inequality (see Knowles
et al., 2009) and by minority group members as a mechanism for
combating stigmatization (see Purdie-Vaughns & Ditlmann,
2010). Initiatives based upon the color-blind model face an im-
portant challenge, however, in that minorities may perceive initia-
tives using color-blind rhetoric as being disingenuous—that is, as
a veiled attempt by organizations to claim a concern for fairness
and equality while they in practice do little if anything to support
these goals (Purdie-Vaughns, Steele, Davies, Ditlmann, & Crosby,
2008). This may be particularly likely to occur when organizations
do not seem to demonstrate support for diversity (e.g., low numer-
ical representation of minorities). Empirically, studies have re-
vealed a host of insidious consequences of the color-blind model,
including the perpetuation of unequal treatment of students in
school settings (Apfelbaum, Pauker, Sommers, & Ambady, 2010;
Schofield, 2006), lower empathy among counselors toward minor-
ity clients (Burkard & Knox, 2004), the justification of group-
based inequality (Knowles et al., 2009; Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee,
& Browne, 2000; Saguy, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2008), stronger racial
bias and interpersonal discrimination among Whites (Apfelbaum,
Sommers, & Norton, 2008; Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004; Scho-
field, 2006), lack of consistent improvement in the employment
status of minorities (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995a), lower psycho-
logical engagement among minorities (Plaut et al., 2009), and
lower organizational effectiveness (Ely & Thomas, 2001).
The multicultural model, in contrast, appears to have more
positive consequences for intergroup relations. For example,
Whites who endorse multiculturalism or are temporarily primed
with a positive account of multiculturalism show less racial bias
(Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004), more inclusive attitudes on social
policies (Wolsko et al., 2006), and greater acceptance of and
openness to others (Verkuyten, 2005; Vorauer, Gagnon, & Sasaki,
2009). Other benefits of multiculturalism include positive psycho-
logical, educational, and organizational outcomes for minorities
and organizations, such as greater psychological engagement
(Plaut et al., 2009), intellectual and citizenship engagement (Gurin,
Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002), creativity (Leung, Maddux, Galin-
sky, & Chiu, 2008), organizational learning and effectiveness (Ely
& Thomas, 2001), and increased employment status of minorities
(Konrad & Linnehan, 1995a). Thus, on the basis of prior research,
multiculturalism appears to offer a more compelling diversity
strategy than do approaches grounded in the color-blind model of
diversity.
1
For the purposes of this paper, minorities denotes members of racial
and ethnic minority groups.
2
In this paper, we equate exclusion with a lack of inclusion and aversion
with lower support or endorsement (i.e., of diversity efforts).
338
PLAUT, GARNETT, BUFFARDI, AND SANCHEZ-BURKS
Nonetheless, concern among dominant group members about
the divisiveness of multiculturalism (and its attack on American
culture) continues to be raised not only by historians such as
Schlesinger (1992) but also by other academics (Michaels, 2006;
Schmidt, 1997), bloggers (Auster, 2004a; Maynard, 2007), politi-
cians (e.g., Gov. Richard Lamm’s “I have a plan to destroy
America” speech and Gov. Robert Ehrlich Jr.’s remarks on mul-
ticulturalism as “damaging to the society”), and judges (e.g., Shaw
v. Reno, 1995; Parents Involved v. Seattle, 2006). These commen-
taries often draw attention to the “fraud of inclusion” perpetrated
by multicultural ideals (Auster, 2004b, p. 197) as well as a sense
of subjugation of the majority group resulting from the acceptance
and inclusion of minority groups. For example, British journalist
Patrick West (2005, p. 5) wrote, “Multiculturalism . . . has mutated
into a philosophy of self-loathing, in which everything that is the
preserve of ‘the Other’ has to be celebrated.” In the United States
these sentiments have surfaced most powerfully in the domain of
education, where major challenges have been raised to the merits
of multiculturalism as a unifying force (see Banks, 2002; Bennett,
1995). As a recent example, in 2010, Arizona passed a law (HB
2281) banning schools “from teaching classes that are designed for
students of a particular ethnic group, promote resentment, or
advocate ethnic solidarity over treating pupils as individuals.”
Although there are certainly individual exceptions and wide
variation, empirically, dominant racial/ethnic group members such
as Whites appear to show less support for multiculturalism than do
minorities (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995b; Plaut, 2002; Ryan et al.,
2007; Verkuyten, 2005; Wolsko et al., 2006). Whites may even
view multiculturalism as a source of threat or anxiety (Ginges &
Cairns, 2000; Verkuyten, 2005). For example, research reveals that
Whites tend to shy away from— or even resist—multiculturalism
or race consciousness in favor of color-blind policies and practices
in educational (Markus et al., 2000; Schofield, 2006) and organi-
zational settings (E. H. James et al., 2001; Konrad & Linnehan,
1995b; Linnehan & Konrad, 1999; Thomas et al., 2004).
We propose that for Whites (relative to minorities), the appeal of
color-blind initiatives and aversion to multicultural initiatives lies,
in part, in the perceived inclusivity of color blindness and exclu-
sivity of multiculturalism. To complement the literature on minor-
ities’ perceptions of diversity initiatives (e.g., Purdie-Vaughns et
al., 2008), we focus in the present research on understanding
Whites’ perceptions. The crux of our story suggests that Whites’
support— or lack thereof—for multiculturalism varies as a func-
tion of perceptions of inclusion and belonging (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995).
Inclusion and Belongingness
As noted by William James (1890), human beings possess a
fundamental need for inclusion and belonging; recognition by and
acceptance into social groups constitute important aspects of hu-
man survival. Accordingly, individuals strive to establish and
maintain relational bonds (Abrams, Hogg, & Marques, 2005;
Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Moreover, feelings of exclusion
launch a potent attack on a person’s sense of belonging (e.g.,
Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Zadro, Williams, &
Richardson, 2004). Indeed, the intra- and interpersonal conse-
quences of social exclusion include increased anxiety (Baumeister
& Tice, 1990), decrements in self-esteem (Leary & Baumeister,
2000), decreased engagement in prosocial behaviors (Buckley,
Winkel, & Leary, 2004; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke,
2001; Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2002), cognitive deficits
(Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002), and impaired self-regulation
(Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005).
Although in some circumstances socially excluded individuals
seek to reestablish relational bonds and strive toward inclusion
(e.g., Brewer & Pickett, 1999; Williams & Sommer, 1997), reac-
tions to social exclusion generally make it difficult for subsequent
positive intergroup interactions to take root (Polzer & Caruso,
2008). Moreover, because social belongingness represents a fun-
damental motive of human behavior, individuals are particularly
attuned to environmental cues that signal the potential both for
belongingness and for rejection (Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles,
2004). For example, individuals may use cues such as numerical
representation (Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007), number of friends
(Walton & Cohen, 2007), or even physical objects (Cheryan, Plaut,
Davies, & Steele, 2009) to determine their social fit with and
interest in an educational or organizational environment. Of par-
ticular interest, given the goals of our research, are findings show-
ing that cues associated with color blindness and multiculturalism
signal to minorities whether their social identities are “safe” in a
particular context (Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008; see also Ely &
Thomas, 2001; Markus et al., 2000). Whereas prior research on
perceptions of inclusion of social identities has focused on per-
ceptions among minorities (who are typically most at risk of being
excluded), we focus the lens on Whites, whose support for diver-
sity efforts is critical to their effectiveness. We contend that Whites
similarly attend to cues associated with diversity models to ascer-
tain whether their identities are included in a particular context and
that this has implications for diversity efforts.
Present Research
We argue here that a challenge to utilizing multicultural ap-
proaches to diversity management stems, in part, from perceptions
among dominant group members grounded in belonging processes.
To the extent that multiculturalism is perceived as focusing exclu-
sively on the recognition and appreciation of minority identities
(Unzueta & Binning, 2010)—as opposed to unifying them under a
single “American” category often equated with Whites (Devos &
Banaji, 2005)—this approach may create a sense of alienation or
exclusion among Whites. We propose that perceived lack of
inclusion may help account for lower levels of support for multi-
culturalism among Whites relative to minorities. Accordingly,
multiculturalism’s emphasis on the value and contributions of
minorities may foster a sense of exclusion among Whites and
contribute to weaker support for multicultural diversity initiatives.
Five studies, which are described below, examined these proposi-
tions.
Overview of Studies
Study 1 examined whether Whites implicitly associate multicul-
turalism with exclusion. In Study 2, we manipulated subjective
inclusion to test whether this association can be weakened. Study
3 directly investigated the role played by the self-concept in White
and minority reactions to diversity. Here, there were two objec-
tives: First, we tested whether, consistent with previous research,
339
MULTICULTURALISM AND EXCLUSION
Whites show less support for diversity than do minorities. Second,
we examined whether this discrepancy goes beyond group
membership and instead reflects whether individuals feel that
multiculturalism is relevant to the self-concept. Study 4 provides a
conceptual replication and extension of the previous study, with a
focus on perceptions of inclusion in organizational diversity efforts
among working adults in an organizational setting. Finally, Study
5 tested whether individual differences in NTB among Whites
predict aversion or attraction toward organizations promoting a
color-blind versus multicultural diversity model.
We hypothesized the following regarding diversity models, in-
clusion, and diversity endorsement:
1. Whites but not minorities will show an association of
multiculturalism with exclusion (Studies 1, 2, and 3).
2. This association can be attenuated with the explicit in-
clusion of one’s group in the conceptualization of mul-
ticulturalism (Study 2).
3. Whites will endorse diversity and multiculturalism less
than minorities do (Studies 3, 4).
4. A sense of inclusion or that multiculturalism is relevant
to the self predicts greater support for diversity efforts
(Studies 3 and 4).
5. Individual differences in NTB moderate attraction among
Whites toward organizations embracing a color-blind
versus multicultural approach to diversity, such that
higher levels of NTB relate to less attraction to multicul-
turalism (Study 5).
Study 1
In Study 1 the strength of automatic cognitive associations of
color blindness and multiculturalism with exclusion and inclusion
was tested with an implicit association test (IAT). Although there
is some evidence to suggest that the IAT is largely resistant to
self-presentation concerns (Nosek, 2005), we included a measure
of social desirability to test for the possibility of a response bias
stemming from social desirability. We hypothesized that group
status (i.e., White vs. minority) would moderate associations of
color blindness and multiculturalism with exclusion and inclusion.
We predicted that Whites but not minorities would associate the
concept of multiculturalism more readily (i.e., faster) with exclu-
sion than with inclusion.
Method
Participants. Thirty-nine undergraduates (21 female, 18
male) at a large public university in the southeastern United States
participated in the study for partial course credit (mean age
19.49 years, SD 0.97). Of participants, 20 were White and 19
were minorities (42% Black, 16% Asian, 5% Hispanic, and 37%
other non-White ethnicity).
3
Pretests. A pretest was conducted to generate words repre-
senting multiculturalism and color blindness to be used in a sub-
sequent IAT. A set of 40 potential words related to these models
of diversity collected from the literature (e.g., Purdie-Vaughns et
al., 2008; Wolsko et al., 2000) was presented to 49 participants
from the same student population. The pretest participants were
provided with a sentence-long description of each diversity ideol-
ogy and were asked to select eight words from the list that they
believed were most representative of multiculturalism and eight
words that were most representative of color blindness. We used
two criteria for selecting words for use in the IAT: (a) the number
of times each word was chosen as representative of each ideology
and (b) a lack of overlap between words selected for each ideol-
ogy. In other words, the final list included words chosen as most
representative of an ideology as well as representative only of that
ideology.
To confirm further that multiculturalism and color-blindness
words were thought to typify each ideology, we conducted an
additional study. Using a 7-point scale (1 Different,7 Simi-
lar), 37 White participants from the same student population rated
the words as similar to or different from each ideology (multicul-
turalism .83, color-blindness .82; item–total correlations:
multiculturalism, range .25–.81, M .59; color blindness,
.48 –.69, M .59). This test showed that multicultural words were
rated as typifying multicultural ideology (M 5.99, SD 0.93)
and color-blind words were rated as typifying color-blind ideology
(M 5.44; SD 1.35). Both mean ratings differed significantly
from the midpoint of the scale (4) according to one-sample t tests,
ts(36) 6.50, ps .0001. It was also the case that multicultural
words were seen as typifying multicultural ideology significantly
more than were color-blind words (M 5.99 vs. 3.94) and
color-blind words were seen as typifying color-blind ideology
significantly more than were multicultural words (M 5.44 vs.
3.96), according to paired-sample t tests, ts(35) 4.8, ps .0001.
The high Cronbach’s alphas and item–total correlations suggest
that the sets of words had high internal consistency and were
representative of the underlying ideologies of color blindness and
multiculturalism.
Measures.
IAT. Participants completed an IAT designed to measure the
strength of implicit associations between diversity models (i.e.,
multiculturalism, color blindness) and inclusion versus exclusion.
In this task, response latencies were recorded as participants com-
pleted two counterbalanced testing blocks with 40 trials each. In
one block, participants paired five multiculturalism concept words
(i.e., multicultural, culture, variety, difference, and diversity) with
five words denoting exclusion (i.e., exclude, isolate, prevent, ex-
clusion, and reject) and five color-blindness concept words (i.e.,
similarity, assimilation, sameness, color blind, and unity) with five
words denoting inclusion (i.e., include, belong, incorporate, inclu-
sion, and accept). In this testing block, if the displayed concept
word belonged to the multiculturalism or exclusion category, the
participants pressed the E key. If the displayed word belonged to
the color-blindness or inclusion category, the participants pressed
the I key. In the other testing block, in contrast, participants paired
3
Responses from 20 White participants were analyzed in this study. The
20 were randomly selected from a total of 40 White participants who
completed the study to roughly equalize the samples in the minority and
White groups. It should be noted that relatively small sample sizes are not
uncommon in the IAT literature (e.g., Dasgupta & Rivera, 2006). Analyz-
ing all 40 White participants does not change the results.
340
PLAUT, GARNETT, BUFFARDI, AND SANCHEZ-BURKS
multiculturalism words with inclusion and color-blindness words
with exclusion.
Social desirability. Crowne and Marlowe’s (1964) abbrevi-
ated 8-item scale was used to measure the degree to which partic-
ipants desired to present themselves in a manner that would be
viewed favorably by others (e.g., reporting being quick to admit
mistakes or always being courteous). Responses (yes/no) were
reverse scored where necessary and were summed to create an
overall social desirability score.
Demographics. Participants provided demographic informa-
tion, including their racial/ethnic background, age, and gender.
4
Procedure. Participants completed the study individually.
When they consented to take part in a study on “cognitive pro-
cesses in self and social judgments,” participants were asked to
read brief descriptions of two views of diversity in preparation for
a categorization task on the computer. The multiculturalism de-
scription read “This view of diversity stresses the appreciation of
differences due to racial, ethnic, and cultural variety of people.”
The color-blindness description read “This view of diversity
stresses that racial, ethnic, and cultural differences are superficial
and emphasizes the similarity of all people.” The five words
employed in the IAT to denote multiculturalism/color blindness
were listed immediately following each description. Participants
were asked to familiarize themselves with the words in order to use
the information in the subsequent computer task. This information
was given about each ideology in order to elucidate the concept
categories and thus facilitate the categorization process in the IAT
task. Next, participants were directed to complete the IAT on a
computer using Inquisit software. Last, participants completed
paper-and-pencil measures of social desirability and demographics
and were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Results
Main analyses. The data were analyzed following Green-
wald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998), resulting in an IAT effect for
each participant. We calculated the IAT effect by subtracting the
average latency for the multiculturalism–exclusion combinations
(i.e., multiculturalism exclusion and color blindness inclu-
sion) from the average latency for the multiculturalism–inclusion
combinations (i.e., multiculturalism inclusion and color blind-
ness exclusion; see also Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001; Das-
gupta & Rivera, 2006). Thus, the higher the resulting latency, or
IAT effect, the greater the degree of bias for pairing multicultur-
alism with exclusion. Two separate single-sample t tests were then
conducted to compare the mean IAT effect scores by minority
status to zero (e.g., Dasgupta & Rivera, 2006). Results indicated
that the IAT effect for Whites (M 224.96 ms, SD 293.92)
differed significantly from zero, t(19) 3.87, p .001, d 0.77
(i.e., Whites were faster at pairing multiculturalism with exclusion
than with inclusion). In contrast, minorities’ IAT effect scores
(M 117.04 ms, SD 339.84) were statistically no different from
zero, t(18) 1.37, p .19.
5
Thus, as hypothesized, Whites but not
minorities associated multiculturalism with exclusion (see
Figure 1).
Social desirability. To check whether this implicit bias was
separate from socially desirable tendencies, we also analyzed the
relationship between IAT effect and social desirability scores.
Results show that the IAT effect was not significantly correlated
with social desirability for Whites, r(20) .03, p .90, or
minorities, r(19) .04, p .87.
6
Discussion
On an IAT task designed specifically to test the implicit asso-
ciation of the concepts of multiculturalism and color blindness
with inclusion and exclusion, Whites showed a significant bias for
pairing multiculturalism with exclusion (and color blindness with
inclusion). For minorities, there was no significant difference. This
could be because, in the absence of a discriminatory context,
minorities may be open to the potential inclusivity of both ideol-
ogies (Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). The lack of correlation be-
tween IAT scores and social desirability further underscores the
4
Sexual minority status was not measured. There is reason to believe
that gay/lesbian White individuals will be more likely than Whites who are
not sexual minorities to adopt a multicultural stance, but we think this
would only make our analysis more conservative. In other words, the
presence of White gay or lesbian individuals would decrease the possibility
of finding an association of multiculturalism and exclusion.
5
A nonparametric test, the Wilcoxon signed ranks test, was also used to
analyze each group’s IAT effect scores. Results of these tests revealed the
identical pattern as for the one-sample t tests. Additionally, we tested
whether the mean IAT effect scores in each group were significantly
different from each other. An independent-samples t test revealed that they
were not, t(37) 1.34, p .18.
6
Although to our knowledge there has not been an examination of
whether the IAT corrupts subsequent responses on self-report measures of
social desirability, research suggests more generally that there are no
systematic effects of the order in which implicit and explicit measures are
presented (Greenwald & Farnham, 2000; Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji,
2005) and, moreover, that performing the IAT first does not induce
reactance in subsequent self-report measures (Nosek et al., 2005). There-
fore, we do not think it particularly likely that the social desirability
measure was affected by its placement after the implicit measure in Studies
1 and 3.
IAT Scores by Group Status
1200
1300
1400
econds (ms)
IAT effect = 224.96**
IAT effect = 117.04
900
1000
1100
ociations in millise
MC Exclusion
MC Inclusion
600
700
800
Whites Minorities
Automatic ass
Minorities
Group Status
Figure 1. Implicit association test (IAT) results by group status for Study
1. MC exclusion equals mean latency for multiculturalism–exclusion com-
binations (multiculturalism exclusion and color blindness inclusion),
and MC inclusion equals mean latency for multiculturalism–inclusion
combinations (multiculturalism inclusion and color blindness exclu-
sion). Higher bars represent weaker cognitive association.
ⴱⴱ
p .01.
341
MULTICULTURALISM AND EXCLUSION