Advancing Antiracism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in STEMM Organizations: Beyond Broadening Participation (2023)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

6. The Gatekeepers of STEMM: How Individual Bias and Inequality Persist and How STEMM Professionals Can Help The previous chapter focused on minoritized individuals who aspire to be in STEMM. It included data examining experiences of racism, consequences of racism, and how minoritized individuals may respond to racism. It also covered strategies on how to improve minoritized individuals’ experiences in STEMM. The current chapter builds on this work by continuing to focus on individual and interpersonal bias but flipping the attention from the perspective of minoritized individuals to what the committee refers to as the gatekeepers of STEMM. There is a substantial body of research in each of these areas, and this chapter can stand alone from the previous one. However, Chapters 5 and 6 are meant to be read and understood together as they are not mutually exclusive phenomena, but rather two sides of the same coin. Like the previous chapter, the current chapter addresses the charge in the statement of task on reviewing the research and evidence on the ways in which racism at the individual level impedes STEMM careers for minoritized individuals. Here, the committee also addresses the charge to identify methods of improving recruitment, retention, and advancement. This chapter comprises three sections, beginning with a definition of who the gatekeepers are in STEMM. The second section describes different types of racial bias gatekeepers exhibit and discusses the unique function of each type. The third section describes several social motives gatekeepers have and how larger demographic shifts in the nation can inform individual level decisions of gatekeepers. Overall, this chapter shows that gatekeepers possess power and can determine who is and who is not included in STEMM fields. The chapter centers on the research, which describes that most often in STEMM, non-Hispanic White males occupy the gatekeeper role, and that these individuals define the skills, identities, and values necessary for minoritized individuals to persist in STEMM. Furthermore, as discussed in detail below, gatekeepers can perpetuate racism at the individual and interpersonal level. Racial bias is not only more automatic, but also more 6-1 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

ambivalent and ambiguous than most people think, which means that individuals, including gatekeepers, cannot monitor their own bias and will unwittingly perpetuate it. Finally, gatekeepers hold social motives that keep the White status quo of gatekeeping intact. These factors are at odds with promoting antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM and make gatekeepers unlikely to be change agents. Given these factors, fully explored below, STEMM professionals who want to help advance antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEMM should seek to develop accountability structures at the level of the organization to help identify potential patterns of racial bias among gatekeepers. The literature on individual and interpersonal racism covered in this chapter focuses largely on White-on-Black racism. Clearly, racism targets Latine, Indigenous, and Asian individuals as well, but in comparison, these groups have not been studied as much. Therefore, as noted in the beginning of this report, the committee urges creating similar reports on the distinctive forms of racism where sufficient research exists. In addition, the committee urges that more research be conducted on the experiences of each racial and ethnic group, including additional research on understanding the impact of those experiences in STEMM. The committee urges this for several reasons. First, each of these groups has a distinct history and a distinct set of experiences with White gatekeepers, and each group faces its own unique set of stereotypes, prejudices, and discriminatory behaviors. Thus, forms of racism can differ across groups (Fiske, 1998). For instance, Latine immigrants have varied origins, but White discrimination targets them in a categorical way, almost as much as Black individuals (e.g., Fernández et al., 2021). Latine individuals are often viewed as foreign, criminal, and low- skilled (Harris et al., 2020), hardly conducive to STEMM recruitment. White individuals tend to view Native Americans through varied lenses also: the noble, wise, nature-loving elder Indian stereotype versus the ignoble, disreputable alcoholic stereotype (Burkeley et al., 2017); the former stereotype touches on ways of knowing. Other dimensions of racism find White, anti- Asian bias as judging Asians more competent than White people but less socially skilled, so less suited to leadership positions (Lin et al., 2005). In this chapter, the committee does not presume to directly compare experiences across groups. Rather, the committee’s intention is to address some general principles of gatekeepers that tend to cut across their aggregate reactions to various minoritized individuals. 6-2 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

DEFINING AND EXAMINING GATEKEEPERS The following section begins by defining gatekeepers and providing several examples of which individuals in STEMM can occupy the role of gatekeeper. This discussion demonstrates how power is central to defining and identifying gatekeepers and how gatekeepers’ decisions can directly shape antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion outcomes in STEMM environments. Subsequently, the chapter reviews the literature examining gatekeepers through the lens of race and ethnicity and demonstrates that in STEMM contexts, like many other contexts in American society, credentialed non-Hispanic White men are most likely to occupy the role of gatekeepers. Defining Gatekeepers The term gatekeeper is defined simply as any individual who possesses power in a given STEMM context or situation, where power includes the control over valued outcomes and resources (DiTomaso et al., 2007; Torelli et al., 2020; Yu, & Zhao, 2019). Gatekeepers in STEMM can exert their power across a range of everyday behaviors. For example, they can define boundaries, decide who does or does not get tenure, decide who should be hired, decide who gets recognition and praise, and direct the flow of and use of resources. Individuals such as managers, supervisors, admissions officers, principal investigators, heads of laboratories and research groups, deans, university presidents, and chief executive officers represent some of the most common gatekeepers in STEMM. In the context of STEMM, gatekeepers can exert their individual power as a single actor (e.g., a boss promoting an employee) or as an actor within a larger group of other gatekeepers (e.g., a committee). Understanding gatekeepers as a source of power and influence has important implications for antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion-related outcomes in STEMM environments. They can directly shape minoritized individuals’ ability to access, be included, and thrive in STEMM, as they define the skills, identities, and values necessary for minoritized individuals to persist (Estrada et al., 2011). Therefore, gatekeepers are the central focus of this chapter. Even though power and status are often correlated, status is not a necessary feature of the gatekeeper role. Status is defined broadly as the social prestige that comes with an individual’s position within a group (DiTomaso et al., 2007; Torelli et al., 2020; Yu, & Zhao, 2019). For example, a graduate student in physics may be tasked with directly informing who is admitted to 6-3 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

a Ph.D. program. While the graduate student does not necessarily possess status in an academic STEMM context, in this situation they do possess power to inform admissions. Therefore, individuals who do not always have status but possess power on a more situational basis can also occupy the role of gatekeeper. Conversely, some individuals possess both power and status, and their gatekeeping role may persist over time and incorporate power over decisions that have large scale or organizational level impact. For example, a university president whose term spans several years will likely make decisions that affect the entire student body. White Gatekeepers in STEMM Chapter 2 covers an extensive history of how a racial hierarchy was created and reinforced in the United States to systematically advantage White individuals (structural racism), and chapter 3 provides detailed figures on racial disparities in STEMM contexts. The section below is meant to complement these chapters by providing additional analysis of White advantage in STEMM from the perspective of the psychological literature at the individual and interpersonal level (gatekeepers). Because of differences in structural power and status, some groups occupy the gatekeeper role in STEMM more often than others. A century of psychological research shows that in the United States, specific salient characteristics—including being White, male, English-speaking, middle-aged, and credentialed—individually and together confer higher power and status, and with them, respect, and influence. Thus, research shows that non-Hispanic, White, male, credentialed individuals, as the racial group with higher power and status, are the most frequent gatekeepers in STEMM and elsewhere (for reviews, see Bobo & Charles, 2009; Fiske, 1998, 2010; Richeson, in press). Though not all gatekeepers are White and not all White individuals are gatekeepers, the two are correlated. Some areas within STEMM, such as anthropology, sociology, geoscience, biology, and psychology, are more diverse than others, including engineering, chemistry, math, physics, economics, computer science, political science (Langbert, 2018). However, as a whole, STEMM has a particular lack of diversity compared with other fields (see Chapter 3 on the recent demographic data of STEMM). For example, 80 percent of university and college faculty are 6-4 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

White, but in STEM, 91 percent are White and 96 percent are White at more selective schools. (Li & Koedel 2017; Nelson et al. 2010). While power and status are disproportionally located within this group, there is research demonstrating that many White individuals express discomfort identifying as White because of the association with White supremacy (Grzanka, Gonzalez, & Spanieman, 2019; Thomann & Suyemoto, 2018). However, ignoring one’s race does not make its privileges, power, and status vanish (Helms, 1990). Salient characteristics convey status without the individual choosing to, so certain immediately apparent features anchor interpersonal interactions in any human’s situation, including STEMM environments (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; Carter et al., 2019; Ridgeway, 2019). Whether or not it is acknowledged, in the West generally and the United States specifically, White individuals carry higher status in countless ways (Fiske, 2010). For example, “White” is the default assumption for citizens (Devos & Banaji, 2005), just as “male” is the default for “scientist” (Cheryan & Markus, 2020). The linguistic standard dialect comes from White speech (Labov, 1972), and research has found that White individuals widely favor other White individuals and have anti-non-White prejudices (Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010). Importantly, from this structural position of power follows the risk of enacting racism (also sexism, heterosexism, etc.; Fiske, 1993). In U.S. society, White individuals have largely controlled social constructions of race and have historically defined it as essential, even biological. Furthermore, to maintain these beliefs, they tend to favor more neighborhood segregation and limit discretionary contact (e.g., Charles, 2000). Most White individuals are not routinely interdependent with (i.e., on teams with) minoritized individuals. As other chapters elaborate, these factors underlie structural racism (see Chapters 2 and 3). These practices may find their way into STEMM contexts, and racism may also be enacted at the individual and interpersonal level via gatekeepers. For example, White gatekeepers may frame local cultural “fit” in terms such as “requires brilliance” or “innate/fixed talent” that alienate, discourage, and undermine minoritized individuals who aspire to that career (Chestnut et al., 2018; Muradoglu et al., 2022; Storage et al., 2016). On the other hand, the use of other, more welcoming terms such as “learnable skills” and “can grow” implies support, encouragement, and growth (Burnette et al., 2020). Even though this welcoming interpersonal approach is possible, the later sections in this chapter will show that on average, White 6-5 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

individuals hold beliefs that maintain their power and privilege, scoring higher on social dominance, conservatism, and system justification. Thus, gatekeepers tend to favor power, status, homogeneity, similarity, and familiarity. That is, on average White individuals are prone to keeping their surroundings White (Charles, 2000). The next section examines in detail how gatekeepers manifest and perpetuate racism at the individual. EXAMINING RACISM PERPETUATED BY GATEKEEPERS Gatekeepers (as well as other individuals) possess three kinds of psychological bias: cognitive stereotyping, emotional prejudice, and behavioral discrimination, all of which perpetuate racism at an individual level and undermine antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Each of these is explained below. Following that, the section explores several different clusters by which racism can take form, including old-fashioned or blatant racism; more modern or aversive racism; and cognitive biases that can perpetuate racism but occur automatically. Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination Cognitive stereotyping, emotional prejudice, and behavioral discrimination are forms of psychological bias that tend to correlate but operate differentially (Bodenhausen et al., in press). Additionally, all three forms of bias tend to target members of an outgroup (e.g., another racial group or “others”) as a category, more than the individuals’ own ingroup, whom they tend to individuate or personalize. Stereotyping is where an individual overgeneralizes a set of characteristics, such as being untrustworthy, unfriendly, incompetent, pushy, unattractive, or contagious, to outgroup members as a whole (Nicolas, et al., 2021). This cognitive bias occurs as the result of social categorization, where individuals put people into different groups based on perceived similarity (see Chapter 5 for more on social categorization and its relation to stereotyping; Leonardelli and Toh, 2015). This categorization occurs for all people across time in order to quickly determine which social environments are safe and which are threatening. Prejudice is an evaluative bias, where individuals attach affective values to groups that might range from simple negative-positive attitudes to complex emotions, such as envy, resentment, scorn, pity, and fear (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Fiske et al., 2002; Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007). Positive prejudices include admiration and pride (Cuddy et al., 2007). Emotional 6-6 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

prejudices predict discriminatory behavior twice as well as cognitive stereotypes do (Talaska et al., 2008). Discrimination is behaving distinctly toward an outgroup member, based on stereotypic assumptions or emotional prejudices. Discrimination includes both active harm (attack) and passive harm (neglect), as well as active help (protect) and passive help (tolerate) (Cuddy et al., 2007). As other chapters show, discrimination occurs in everyday interactions, including within STEMM organizations. For example, common discriminatory behaviors include not being hired or promoted, qualifications judged as supposedly insufficient, being unfairly fired, unfairly denied services, and being unfairly stopped, searched, and treated by the police (Williams et al., 2008; Williams et al., 1997). Explicit Bias, Old-fashioned Racism, and Dehumanization White Americans, as the dominant racial group and most frequent gatekeepers in STEMM, can sometimes be explicitly biased (Bobo & Charles, 2009; Fiske, 1998, 2010; Richeson, in press). Explicit bias is also referred to as overt or “old-fashioned” racism. Overt racism, forged in years of slavery and oppression, inaccurately views Black individuals as inferior to White individuals, even as subhuman, dating back to pseudo-logic justifying slavery (Oh, 2020). No group of individuals are immune from expressing bias; even educators show some racial biases (Turetsky et al., 2021). However, over time, overt or “old-fashioned” expressions of bias have been on the decline. Multiple factors, such as systemic-level shifts in policies (see Chapter 2) have, in part, helped reduce the occurrence of blatant bias, even at the individual level. Examples of this trend include integrated housing (Jahoda & West, 1951) and integrated neighborhoods leading to less racial bias (Oliver & Wong, 2003). Systemic change also includes implementation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e17), which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of a number of protected “classes,” including race (National Archives, n.d.; U.S. Code, n.d.). Research demonstrates that racial attitudes changed significantly for most White Americans over the 20th century, in part because of these systemic-level policy changes (Schuman, Steeh, & Bobo, 1985; Smelser, Wilson, & Mitchell, 2001). 6-7 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

Although overt biases have on average become less common as measured on surveys, they have not become extinct. A hardcore resistant 10 to 20 percent of the population (depending on the measure; see Figure 6-1; National Research Council, 2001), almost all White, still express overt biases by openly endorsing segregation, White supremacy, and Black inferiority. Research focused on bias toward Black Americans has shown that forms of overt bias include, expressed outward hostility and degradation, beliefs that minoritized individuals are unintelligent and criminal, a general overall negative “feeling thermometer” about Black individuals, and support for formal forms of racial discrimination (Henry & Sears, 2002). Demographic groups scoring high on these scales are often White individuals, who dominate gatekeeper roles, and less educated people whose own status is precarious, except for their perceived White superiority (e.g., Henry & Sears, 2002). Research also shows that Black individuals on average still experience and perceive more discrimination than White individuals do (Earle & Hodson, 2020). In fact, White individuals on average are more likely to deny Black individual’s reports of discrimination. Instead, White individuals on average view their own group as losing ground, as Black individuals gain civil rights. Conversely, research demonstrates Black individuals less often view civil rights as a zero-sum game over time (Peacock & Biernat, 2021). Besides endorsing salient stereotypes of being criminal, lazy, and unintelligent, extreme racists have been found to rate Black individuals as being less than human (Kteily et al., 2015). Using the graphic of silhouettes showing the “Ascent of Man (sic)” from quadrupedal apes to our modern upright form, 42 percent of a representative sample of Americans rate African Americans as being less than fully human (Jardina & Piston, 2022). Although most participants (57 percent) rated African Americans and White individuals the same, the study demonstrated that African Americans were not always perceived as fully human by everyone as a result of the variation in this perception among participants. Furthermore, these ratings predict consequential behavior, such as presidential voting. In addition, these ratings correlate with denying that Black people as a group have typically human attributes, such as being warm and good-natured (Haslam & Loughnan, 2014). Studies have demonstrated that overt, subhuman racist epithets and metaphors that liken Black individuals to primates are also found in police dispatch tapes and newspaper crime reports (Goff et al., 2008), and early visual processing links them to criminality (Eberhardt et al., 2004). 6-8 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

FIGURE 6-1 Trends in White’s attitudes about racial intermarriage. Oppose Laws: Do you think there should be laws against marriages between Blacks and Whites? Favor Intermarriage: Do you approve or disapprove of marriage between Whites and Non-Whites? (Adapted from Shuman et al., 1997). SOURCE: (National Research Council, 2001, Figure 9-4). Most White individual do not subscribe to these overtly racist and inaccurate views, but there are certain attributes that are predictive of such biases. One such difference is by political party; there is data demonstrating that White Republicans believe that anti-White discrimination outweighs anti-Black discrimination (Earle & Hodson, 2020; Peacock & Biernat, 2021). Another difference is by personality; certain personalities among White individuals are predictive of tendencies toward exhibiting biases more than others. For example, a cluster of three conceptually related traits that are usually self-serving and are socially adverse—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013)—significantly correlate with increased outgroup prejudice (Hodson et al., 2009; Koehn et al., 2019), racism, (Jonason et al., 2020), and social dominance orientation, which is a tendency toward maintaining social inequalities (Hodson et al., 2009; Ho et al., 2015). Narcissism, a strong or inflated sense of the self and entitlement, also devalues others and lacks empathy (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012). Machiavellianism focuses on deceit and exploiting others, often manipulatively, working in logical yet immoral ways to gain power, while 6-9 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

psychopathy entails a substantial lack of empathy and regard for others, often accompanied by antisocial behavior, and irresponsibility (Hodson, Hogg, & MacInnis, 2009). While there is as yet no research linking these personality types to STEMM settings, there is no reason to expect individuals with these personality types to be absent from such settings (Logan, Prescott, & Katz, 2019). That said, although certain personalities may be more inclined to hold racist prejudices and to discriminate overtly, these explicit biases can be and are held by others as well. Despite the variability in White individuals’ expressions of racial biases, overt bias continues to be the rarest form. As the next section will show, more indirect or covert forms of racism are even more common and pervasive, including in academic environments, among White individuals despite their better intentions. This makes covert biases difficult to control. Aversive, Symbolic, and Modern Racism Because most well-socialized individuals believe old-fashioned, overt racism to be unacceptable, verbalized racial attitudes became less direct, enabling “modern” racism to often fly under the radar (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986). Various forms of less obvious contemporary racism uphold current systems of racial inequality (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; McConahay, 1986; Sears, Henry, & Kosterman, 2000). Aversive racism is where individuals who hold and may express outwardly egalitarian attitudes nevertheless have an aversion to members of their outgroups (e.g., White individuals having an aversion to Black individuals, Indigenous individuals, Latine individuals). Aversive racism describes a subtler racism than old-fashioned racism that is not recognized by White individuals as inappropriate, based on contemporary standards, but this aversion shows they still harbor negatively prejudiced attitudes (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). These prejudices leak out in nonverbal responses, described below. Symbolic racism, a related form of modern racism, occurs when members of the dominant racial group hold what seem like cohesive beliefs, but their beliefs are actually informed by underlying bias. Empirically, their attitudes stem from anti-Black sentiment such as Black individuals are intrinsically lacking, being lazy, and too demanding; that they are no longer victims of discrimination; and that Black individuals are allegedly getting more than they deserve (Henry & Sears, 2002). As such, individuals who are likely to endorse symbolic racism, tend to disfavor race-based policy related to minoritized racial groups (e.g., affirmative action) 6-10 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

(Brandt & Reyna, 2012). These modern forms of racism are generally not recognized as discriminatory and do not necessarily violate the law, but may still reinforce racial inequalities. Two related forms of indirectly racist behaviors include microaggressions and incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Sue, 2010; Torino et al., 2019). Incivility is defined as low- intensity types of conduct that may not be obvious to others in their intent to harm, unlike overt discrimination (Cortina et al., 2013; Kabat-Farr, Settles, & Cortina, 2020). While microaggressions can be similar to incivilities, some scholars have noted that microaggressions are usually targeted toward groups that face marginalization (Patterson, 2017). Some examples of these behaviors may include disrespectful verbal behaviors, such as premature use of a person’s first name, and distant non-verbal behaviors, such as not making eye contact and being distracted. At work, this may include behaviors such as exclusion (Martin & Hine, 2005). Microaggressions and incivilities appear in STEMM contexts, with some evidence suggesting they can be targeted against minoritized individuals; research has looked specifically at the experiences of Latine engineering students (Smith et al., 2022) and minoritized students in STEMM programs in colleges (Dortch & Patel, 2017; Lee et al., 2020; Miles, Brockman, & Naphan-Kingery, 2020). A study of college students found that microaggressions and incivilities may not occur as isolated incidents, but are ingrained within the larger campus culture, so minoritized individuals may frequently encounter them from multiple sources on campus (Lee et al., 2020). Furthermore, these experiences of microaggressions act as a major barrier because they reduce minoritized individuals’ sense of belonging within STEMM contexts (Miles et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2022). To summarize, gatekeepers are likely to hold racial attitudes that are covert, hidden from self and others, but still imply White superiority, support the status quo, and prefer racial hierarchy. These forms of bias are pervasive. For example, across most occupations, hiring managers favor a White over Black candidate (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004). Unexamined Cognitive Bias: The Privilege of Not Thinking Regardless of changing norms, individual racism has cognitive underpinnings that remain unchanged. Racial cognitive bias is thus harder to detect than overt racism. The following research will show that ordinary individual racial bias is not only more automatic, but also more ambivalent and ambiguous than most people think—and often too much so for gatekeepers to 6-11 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

notice at all. Because of their position as holders of disproportionate power, gatekeepers have the privilege of not thinking about their own stereotyping, making them vulnerable to doing more of it (Fiske, 1993). This means mean that individuals cannot easily monitor their own bias, and they will unwittingly perpetuate it. To counter racism in STEMM, systemic accountability at the organizational level will be essential. Automatic Category Detection and Implicit Associations The following research will show that ordinary individual racial bias is more automatic than most people think. As discussed in Chapter 5, social categorization is the process by which people categorize others into groups based on perceived similarities (Allport, 1954; Bodenhausen et al., in press), and research finds that the racial categorization effect is robust (Kubota & Ito, 2017; Pietraszewski, 2018). As social beings, people categorize each other automatically by dimensions that are universal (gender, age) and those salient in a given culture (in the U.S., race/ethnicity) (Allport, 1954; Bodenhausen et al., in press). With defined racial categories come culturally associated stereotypes and prejudices. Even White introductory psychology students who do not endorse stereotypes and prejudices explicitly have been found to still carry those associations from the environment (Devine, 1989). For these individuals, their automatic racist associations will contrast with their more controlled, deliberate egalitarian responses. For those who explicitly endorse the stereotypes and prejudices, the two responses are the same. Relatively automatic and controlled responses emerge in implicit biases versus explicit biases. Explicit bias includes the already-discussed overt expressions of prejudice and explicit endorsement of stereotypes. On the other hand, implicit bias refers to stereotypic beliefs and negative evaluations, about social groups that pop into mind quickly, often with little awareness or intention (Blair, Dasgupta, & Glaser, 2015; Greenwald & Banaji 1995). Implicit attitudes (prejudice) and beliefs (stereotypes) are conceptualized as strong mental associations connecting social groups with positive or negative evaluations in the case of implicit prejudice, or with specific attributes (brilliant vs. mediocre), in the case of implicit stereotypes. The stronger the mental association, the faster they get activated in a given situation. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures implicit biases (stereotypes and prejudices) that would otherwise not be captured on standard or more explicit psychological measures. The 6-12 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

IAT is a categorization test that measures the strengths of associations between a concept (such as a racial group) (e.g., “Black” and “White”) and a series of attributes (e.g., “good” and “bad”). For example, participants taking the IAT may be asked to categorize on the same side of the screen, one specific racial group (White) with one specific set of attributes (good), and on the other side a different racial group (Black) and a different set of attributes (bad). Then they do the opposite pairings (e.g., pairing Black and “good”). The faster they pair the ingroup/good and outgroup/bad than the reverse, the more implicit bias they are showing (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998; Fazio & Olson, 2003). Research using a variety of racial outgroups, including Latines (Pérez, 2010) and probably Native Americans (Poitra & Norder, 2019), show similar patterns. White individuals, as the historical majority, are seen as “owning” the nation to the degree that “White” is more rapidly paired with “American” than are other racial and ethnic groups (Devos & Anderson, 2019). Decades of research using the IAT have demonstrated a substantial prevalence of implicit bias against Black individuals, such that White individuals on average associate their own group labels (White, European-American) with positive attributes and the outgroup (Black, African Americans) with negative attributes (Banaji, Fiske, & Massey, 2021; Kurdi et al., 2019). The IAT website attracts millions of participants over the age 18, so results generalize to populations besides students, a common pool of research participants. 1 In specific studies, participants include STEMM professionals who act as gatekeepers and who commonly show implicit bias against minoritized groups (Jost et al., 2009). Implicit bias correlates with social exclusion by race (Rudman & Ashmore, 2007), as well as employment decisions for a variety of protected groups, including race and ethnicity (Jost et al., 2009). In a meta-analysis of 217 studies, implicit associations reliably predicted intergroup behavior (Kurdi et al., 2019). Implicit bias is relatively automatic and unintentional, but is still informed by intergroup motivation and context such as affiliation, where social networks, both small and large, shape implicit racial attitudes. Motives to affiliate with other people, to create a shared reality, can meaningfully influence the expression of automatic bias (Sinclair et al., 2005). For example, White Americans express less implicit racial bias in the presence of Black experimenters compared with White experimenters. For good or ill, these social tuning effects operate through 1 https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html 6-13 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

affiliation networks, leading people to adopt the attitudes and perspectives of other network members (Jacoby-Senghor et al., 2015). These processes may be implicated in the persistence of societal racial disparities, despite reductions in individual levels of racial bias. People working in racially homogenous STEMM departments and organizations may be particularly susceptible to perpetuating racial biases, given they are not being challenged to question their existing worldviews. Increased numeric diversity may be essential to interrupting existing social cognitive processes for White individuals. Reviewing studies of real-world implicit bias in millions of online participants reveals its link to systemic discrimination in particular regions (Charlesworth & Banaji, in press). For example, anti-Black/pro-White IAT scores in a county’s teachers predicted racial gaps in children’s achievement tests and racial disparities in school discipline (Chin et al., 2020; Riddle & Sinclair, 2019). Regional implicit racial bias has also been found to be predictive of upward mobility from one generation to the next. Specifically, among low-poverty neighborhoods, a significant factor that was predictive of smaller Black-White intergenerational gaps included Black men growing up in tracts that have less racial bias among White individuals (Chetty et al., 2020). The point here is that implicit biases predict discriminatory behavior, whether between individuals or “in the air,” i.e., systemic. Both implicit and explicit biases are measurably decreasing, thanks to the millennial generation. In the nearly two million online respondents, race and skin-tone implicit biases have markedly improved over the past decade, faster than age and disability biases, but not as fast as sexuality biases (see Figure 6-2; Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019). The same holds for explicit biases (see Figure 6-2). These trends match nationally representative survey samples, as noted earlier. But individual change does not immediately or automatically change systemic factors. Even without individual-to-individual bias, structural disparities (housing segregation, wealth gaps, underfunded schools, over-policing—and more) persist (see Chapter 2 for a fuller history of structural racism in the United States). Still, automatic biases complicate the issue because individuals may perpetuate biases without even knowing they are carriers of contagion (Charlesworth & Banaji, in press), and this is true for STEMM educators and professionals. 6-14 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

6-15 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

FIGURE 6-2 Change and predicted change in implicit and explicit attitudes from 2007 to 2020: observed monthly weighted averages (2007–2016) of implicit association test (IAT) D scores (implicit attitudes; top two rows) and explicit-preference scores (explicit attitudes; bottom two rows), as well as forecasts of the autoregressive-integrated-moving-average (ARIMA) model (2017–2020). Solid black lines indicate decomposed trends of observed data (removing seasonality and noise), solid light-gray lines indicate the weighted monthly means from observed data, dotted black lines within the light-gray areas indicate the means of the ARIMA forecasts, light-gray areas indicate 80 percent confidence intervals (CIs), and dark-gray areas indicate 95% CIs of the ARIMA forecasts. SOURCE: (Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019). Ambivalent, Plausibly Deniable Biases Research shows that ordinary individual racial bias is more ambivalent than most people think. Most forms of bias have both positive and negative components, allowing individuals to claim and to feel unbiased. For example, a person might claim that Black individuals cannot do science, but they can do music and sports; this same individual can then claim to respect Black people, just not in STEMM. The two key dimensions of stereotypes enable this (Abele et al., 2021; Fiske et al., 2002). One dimension is the group’s perceived competence and status in society. Americans report in representative sample surveys (Cuddy et al., 2007) that our society views some racial and ethnic groups as more capable (Asians, Whites, Jews, British, Germans) than others (Italians, Turks, immigrants from Africa or Latin America). The other dimension is warmth (trustworthy, friendly). People believe that others like themselves are trustworthy. Racial stereotypes about people viewed as Black depend on whom you ask about whom and in what context. Elite student samples (Princeton, from 1933 to 2003) report that Black Americans are stereotypically warm but incompetent, suggesting a patronizing bias, or liking without respecting (Bergsieker et al., 2012; Katz & Braly, 1933). If supported widely, this would reflect on Black STEMM students’ experiences with peers and colleagues. Perceived subtypes of Black people 2 provide more differentiated but still stereotypic images. Native Americans are also 2 More of a puzzle is an adult sample’s report that Black Americans are viewed neutrally on warmth and competence, likely a deliberately careful response, given other measures of racial attitudes and the sensitive nature of expressing opinions on racism (Kervyn et al., 2015). Alternately, this may mask a combination of common subgroups that cancel out to neutral: low-income people (race unspecified) are stereotypically neither competent nor warm (representative sample; Cuddy et al., 2007). Black professionals are however stereotypically competent, and only moderately warm (nationally representative sample; Cuddy et al., 2007) . Combining across low and high status would add up to neutral. Consistent with the idea that race and class combine to produce most non-Black adults’ stereotypes of Black people because of subgroups, a sample of online Black adults rated Black subgroups much as Black students did, with competence largely a function of social class (Fiske et al., 2009). 6-16 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

viewed in terms of subtypes, including noble and ignoble, though the aggregate, overall generic image might seem neutral (Burkley et al., 2017). Immigrants, too, are subtyped into racialized groups: respected and liked Canadians and Western Europeans; threatening Asian and Jewish competitors; contemptible Mexican, Central American, and African migrants (note that “race” dominates the subtyping patterns) (Lee et al., 2006). These nuances are important to the experiences of STEMM trainees, graduates, and professionals. To the extent a peer views a minoritized peer ambivalently, e.g. as nice but dumb, this is a deniable prejudice suggesting a condescending pity. Indeed, in online and laboratory studies, well-meaning liberal White respondents talk down to Black peers, dumbing down their vocabulary and topic choices (Dupree & Fiske, 2019). High-status people who want to “get- along” do the same competence downshift when interacting with a lower-status person (Swencionis & Fiske, 2016). If these results characterize STEMM interactions, it is possible that White individuals are unintentionally patronizing their Black colleagues, while feeling friendly in the attempt. Ambivalence is hard to detect because on a superficial level it seems pleasant. Again, a cognitive feature of individual racism makes individuals unaware or able to deny their prejudices. The larger context can monitor them better than they can monitor themselves. Ambiguous Attributions Maintain Flexibility The following research summarized here show that ordinary individual racial bias is more ambiguous than most people think. When gatekeepers are ambiguous about the reasons behind their decisions, they gain flexibility; that is, they can later plausibly deny that the choice was racist. To illustrate this, the committee has gathered examples that reveal this process of ambiguous attributions about feedback, performance, and discomfort. For example, was that person treated in a certain way because of their race or because of a bad interview? The implication of this ambiguity is that organizational-level accountability must rely on examining the gatekeeper’s aggregate patterns and choices, not on any single choice that may have ambiguous origins. Minoritized individuals can experience attributional ambiguity (discussed in Chapter 5): Is this negative feedback a result of my performance or my race? (Major & O’Brien, 2003). Gatekeepers must also attribute minoritized individuals’ outcomes to either race or individual factors. How they introduce a new staff member, in terms of causal attributions, indicate the 6-17 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

opposing views that can make or break a career: “This is Henry, hired under our new diversity plan” versus “This is Henry, whose excellence for this job made him our top choice.” Attributions to category, as in affirmative action, are stigmatizing (Heilman et al., 1992), but subtle and indirect. When the reason for the evaluator’s decision is ambiguous (either target’s individual factors or target’s category, such as race), it maintains flexibility and thus, deniability. Being accountable for a decision assumes that observers can pin it down. Another attributional dilemma comes from distinguishing whether a gatekeeper’s decision mainly favored the ingroup or disfavored the outgroup (Tajfel, 1982). When White gatekeepers opt to choose others similar to self, they are not necessarily displaying hostility to minoritized individuals, but perhaps comfort with other ingroup White individuals. In a zero-sum game, the outcome for the excluded minoritized person is the same, but the cause differs. Responding to overt hostility, such as not being chosen because of being a minoritized individual, differs from responding to passive exclusion, such as not being chosen because the gatekeeper favors White individuals. When managers describe choices as a matter of fit (the ingroup “fits;” Heilman, 1983), they create attributional ambiguity and plausible deniability. When gatekeepers fail to put their response into words, they again obscure the decision. Gatekeepers maintain flexibility by communicating nonverbally, whether intentionally or not. In social interactions, nonverbal distance cues, such as sitting farther away or not facing the other, signal the gatekeeper’s lack of engagement, as well as an interaction not going well for the more engaged, lower status person; this signal affects the minoritized person’s performance. For example, Black and White high-school students—trained to behave according to the same script—interviewed with White college students for a STEMM research assistant job (Fiske, 2010). White interviewers talking to Black interviewees displayed nonverbal discomfort, at a minimum, and possibly antipathy, given that they ended the interview sooner, oriented away, and conveyed disfluencies. In a second study, White interviewers trained to display the same nonverbal cues directed toward the White or Black applicants in the first study. White interviewees, treated as if they were Black, performed worse and judged the interviewer as less competent, compared with White interviewees treated as White (Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974). Nonverbal behavior expresses gatekeepers’ racial category-based responses that are made outside of full consciousness or awareness. This has self-fulfilling effects on minoritized individuals (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1986). In general, cognitive racial expectations come across 6-18 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

in spoken words, while affective prejudices come across as nonverbal impressions (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002). Gatekeepers are not called to account for their nonverbal behavior because the signal is often too ambiguous or noisy in any given instance. While the previous chapter covered the psychological impacts of experiencing racism from the perspective of the minoritized individual, the committee was not able to incorporate a similar section in the current chapter—namely, the psychological impacts of perpetuating racism from the perspective of the gatekeeper in STEMM. This is a result of the dearth of research in this area; more is clearly needed. A critic might argue, specifically with regard to STEMM gatekeepers and bias, that STEMM professionals are trained to observe, analyze, and interpret objectively, so they would not be vulnerable to errors and biases in judging others. Unfortunately, graduate training does not guarantee accuracy on the types of reasoning implicated in judging other people: statistics, confounds, or logic (Lehman et al., 1988). No research at this time demonstrates that STEMM gatekeepers are immune from perpetrating racial bias. The perpetual underrepresentation of Black, Indigenous, and Latine students, faculty, professionals implies that something is amiss. GATEKEEPERS’ SOCIAL MOTIVES TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO This section reviews literature demonstrating that gatekeepers tend to possess several social motives that enable the preservation the status quo of gatekeeping (i.e., that most gatekeepers tend to be White). The role of gatekeeper selects for people with status-quo- perpetuating attitudes and encourages those attitudes because they preserve the position’s advantages. The same is true for the gatekeeper’s motives, which are self-serving because they can be. Gatekeepers see opportunities and rewards everywhere (Keltner et al., 2003). Gatekeepers can attend to their goals because they are not contingent or as dependent on other people (Guinote, 2017). Gatekeepers are prone to stereotyping outgroup others because powerholders by definition do not depend on their subordinates (Fiske, 1993). Likewise, White individuals tend to endorse beliefs that favor their continuing power and status (Fiske, 2010). All these self-serving tendencies appear in the core social motives that drive gatekeepers. These are loosely grouped into the following categories: (i) belonging; (ii) understanding and controlling, and (iii) esteeming and trusting. Comprehending these motives can suggest how to intervene in systemic structures that routinely advantage White individuals. Belonging works as 6-19 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

the overarching social motive, while understanding and controlling are considered the more motivated cognitions, and esteeming and trusting are motivated affects. Each of these are discussed below. Belonging as a Moral Credential As discussed, minoritized individuals desire and often work toward of a sense of belonging in STEMM, but are usually denied (see Chapter 5). On the other hand, it would seem that White gatekeepers automatically feel they belong in STEMM contexts, given U.S. history and given that they are most likely to occupy those positions. Thus, belonging for gatekeepers is not necessarily a recognition of their competence and achievement, as belonging would be to minoritized individuals (Dupree & Fiske, 2019; Swencionis & Fiske, 2016). Furthermore, gatekeepers have power to determine who belongs and who does not belong in STEMM. Organizations make tradeoffs between instrumental (practical) and moral (justice) reasons for policy, including policy pertaining to advancing diversity. Institutional justifications for antiracism, diversity, equity and inclusion, if they focus on profit or benefits to White individuals, are generally pleasing to White respondents (Starck et al., 2021), but they are instrumental justifications and not justice-oriented. For example, this sentiment may reflect the belief that “diversity helps increase profit.” For Black respondents, the justification for belonging is often social justice, which communicates shared morality. For example, this sentiment may include the belief that “advancing diversity is the right thing to do.” Instrumental justification correlates with academic settings that show greater racial disparities. Instrumentality sends the message to minoritized individuals that now they are welcome only because they are useful—not because equitable belonging is the right way to treat another human. From the perspective of minoritized individuals, being useful for instrumental purposes, but not being part of the moral circle, is dehumanizing. Gatekeepers generally seek to be accepted as a good and unprejudiced person, and as such use diversity instrumentally and make belonging a moral credential (Dupree & Fiske, 2019; Swencionis & Fiske, 2016). For example, having chosen one minoritized individual for the shortlist demonstrates, in the mind of the gatekeeper, a lack of prejudice, while hiring a White person from the shortlist feels justified (Merritt et al., 2012; Monin & Miller, 2001). 6-20 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

Understanding and Controlling Resources Gatekeepers are more likely to understand the social world as full of groups that will not change and that exist in dominance hierarchies. In that regard, gatekeepers tend to favor power, status, homogeneity, similarity, and familiarity, and altogether preserve the status quo, which they usually control. Several cognitive belief systems support these biased understandings, including essentialism, dominance, authoritarianism, system justification, and a need for closure. All of these create obstacles for antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion-related change, maintain White gatekeeper control over resources, and make gatekeepers unlikely to be change agents. Essentialism is the belief that specific social categories, such as racial groups, are natural, and individuals who belong to specific social categories have essences, or underlying natures that are associated with that category (Medin & Ortony, 1989). These essences that relate to category membership are believed to be naturally occurring, inborn, and immutable characteristics. Consequently, essentialist beliefs are associated with more rigid and categorical thinking, and subsequently a greater stereotyping, prejudice, racism, and greater support for boundary enhancing policies (Keller, 2005; Mahalingam, 2003; Mandalaywala, Amodio & Rhodes, 2018; Roberts et al., 2017). This cognitive bias is analogous to endorsing the belief that race is a biological and not a social construct (Shudson & Gelman, 2022). STEM faculty who view ability as fixed, for example, have bigger racial disparities regarding student motivation and achievement (Canning et al., 2019). More generally, a growth mindset, instead of a fixed mindset, facilitates student engagement and performance (Muenks et al., 2019). Social dominance orientation is another belief system that tends to underpin support for the status quo. It is an individual-level difference in the preference for group-based hierarchy and inequality, and individuals who have higher levels of social dominance orientation tend to make decisions and judgments that serve to protect the status quo (Pratto et al., 1994; Ho, Kteily, & Chen, 2020). For example, this effect has been examined within the racial categorization of multiracial individuals (Ho et al., 2013; Ho, Kteily, & Chen, 2017). One study found that White individuals who were strong endorsers of social dominance orientation, as compared to those White individuals who were not, were more likely to categorize a multiracial (Black-White) individual as being Black as compared to White. This was especially true when these White participants believed that their high status was threatened. This pattern of categorization— 6-21 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

exclusion from a higher status racial group membership—is consistent with racial status boundaries that are reinforced by excluding multiracial people from the White racial group (Ho et at., 2013). Greater endorsement of maintaining socially based inequalities is also a significant predictor of policy preference. One study found that the more that individuals held strong motivations to endorse hierarchy between groups, the less they perceive inequality between “higher status” and “lower status” groups. Furthermore, perceiving less inequality was significantly associated with rejecting egalitarian social policies (Kteily, Sheehy-Skeffington, & Ho, 2017). Individual differences in social dominance orientation therefore predicts which STEMM gatekeepers will be open to leveling the playing field and which will favor hierarchies. Another example of a belief system that often endorses and maintains the status quo is right-wing authoritarianism, is a politically oriented motivation to submit to authority, acting aggressively with the purpose of supporting authority, and often displaying hostility toward outgroup members (Altemeyer, 1998). Research has defined two primary facets of right-wing authoritarianism that tend to drive behaviors. First, individuals who score high in right-wing authoritarianism tend to perceive individuals as being a part of either their ingroup or an outgroup. Furthermore, those who are deemed to belong in the outgroup are perceived as threatening authoritarianism values. Second, individuals who score high in right-wing authoritarianism tend to perceive themselves as possessing a greater sense of morals, and subsequently feel justified to behave in ways that uphold systems and figures of authority (Whitley, 1999). Increased endorsement of right-wing authoritarianism is associated with more negative attitudes and more prejudice toward outgroup members (Duckitt et al., 2002; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). Individuals with system justification beliefs tend to find society to be generally fair, that most policies serve the greater good, and that people generally get what they deserve. According to system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004), people vary in their motivation to defend and uphold existing systems. That gatekeepers would be especially likely to favor stability is aligned with preserving the status quo, and indeed advantaged groups’ system-justifying beliefs correlate with higher self-esteem, well-being, and ingroup favoritism (Jost & Hunyady, 2003). The opposite holds for disadvantaged groups whose system- justification beliefs correlate with lower self-esteem, lower well-being, and less ingroup 6-22 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

favoritism, as well as self-stereotyping. When even low-power groups subscribe to system justification, it might not seem to serve their self-interest or group interest, but apparently many low-power group members prioritize predictability over their own interests, at least sometimes. Gatekeepers can exploit this, because justifying the system entails endorsing positive stereotypes about their own group. Indeed, system justification works better for White individuals than for Black individuals (Rankin et al., 2009). Need for closure relates to an individual’s preference (or a situation’s demand) to arrive at an answer quickly rather than having persisting ambiguity (Kruglanski, 1990; Kruglanski & Webster 1996; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). As compared to individuals with a lower need for closure, individuals with a greater need for closure generally have a need to arrive at a decision quickly, and they have a need to create and maintain simple structures (Neuberg, Judice, & West, 1997; Roets & van Hiel, 2007). As such, these individuals may tend to be more rigid in their thinking and are likely to endorse essentialist categorizations, rely on stereotypes, and support authoritarian ideologies. Consequently, the need for closure predicts bias (Roets & van Hiel, 2011; Theodorou & Kosic, 2021), with a higher need for closure significantly associated with prejudice against a range of outgroup members (e.g., Bianco, Kosic, & Pierro, 2022; Burke, et al., 2017; Shah, Kruglanski, & Thompson, 1998). Esteeming and Trusting as Meta-Perceptions Besides motivated cognition that reflects understanding and control in favor of the status quo, gatekeepers seek esteem in the form of respect and appreciation. Because their higher status and power predicts that others will see them as competent, gatekeepers seek recognition of the other main social cognitive dimension, esteem for their warmth in terms of morality and friendliness. This occurs in high-status bosses interacting with subordinates (Swencionis & Fiske, 2016), and liberal White individuals prioritize conveying warmth in their interactions with Black interaction partners. However, because of a perceived warm-competence trade-off—if you are too smart, you must be cold—these well-intentioned White adults in online experiments downshift their competence to seem folksy and down with the people (see section above on ambivalent, plausibly deniable biases). White Democratic candidates for President do the same thing for Black and Latine audiences (Dupree & Fiske, 2019). Therefore, well-meaning STEMM 6-23 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

mentors may be at risk of similarly patronizing behavior; in their attempts to make friends with their mentees, they could be too warm and not respectful enough. Interracial meta-perceptions, or how each person thinks the other sees them and wanting others to see oneself positively, arise in interracial interactions in dozens of laboratory studies (Shelton, Richeson, & Vorauer, 2006). Meta-perceptions are distinct from general perceptions because they are relational; they are one’s beliefs about how the interaction partner perceives the self (Shelton & Richeson, 2006). In other words, meta-perceptions are perceptions of the self, through the lens of the other. Much of the research has focused on interracial interactions between a White individual and a minoritized individual (Shelton & Richeson, 2005). On the one hand, researchers have focused on the perspective of the White individual, including experiences of anxiety (Plant & Devine, 2003) about how they are viewed. For example, in an interracial interaction between a Black individual and a White individual, the White individual’s meta- perceptions could include the extent to which their Black interaction partner would like them. White individuals express concern about their meta-perceptions in the context of interracial interactions, particularly, concerns about being perceived as prejudiced by the other individual (Shelton & Richeson, 2006). In contrast, Black individuals may care more about whether their White interaction partner respects them. Taking these perceptions together, White individuals and minoritized individuals during interracial interactions may have different impression management goals stemming from their meta-perceptions (Fiske et al., 2015). White individuals want to be perceived as moral, fair, and unbiased (Bergsieker, Shelton, & Richeson, 2010). Minoritized individuals want to be respected and perceived as competent. In a STEMM context, respect for one’s ability is more relevant than reassurance that one is not a racist. As a foundational study has demonstrated, there are two primary motivations for White individuals not wanting to be perceived by their minoritized interaction partner as prejudiced (Plant & Devine, 1998). First, some White individuals are externally motived to respond and be perceived as not prejudiced. This motivation is driven out of fear of facing negative social consequences. On the other hand, some individuals may be internally motived to respond and be perceived as not prejudiced. This internal motivation is rooted in a set of personal values. Furthermore, individuals who are more internally motivated to respond without prejudice, as compared to individuals who are externally motivated, navigate interracial interactions in very 6-24 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

different ways. Across a series of studies, White individuals who were internally motivated to respond without prejudice were more likely to engage in partner-focused behaviors toward their Black interaction partner. For example, they were more likely to show them the respect they wanted, and remember more details about what they said and did. Conversely, individuals who were externally motivated were more likely to focus on the self by avoiding engaging in behaviors their partner may find as biased, and were not as sensitive to their partner’s desire for respect (LaCosse & Plant, 2020). For gatekeepers to build trust between themselves and minoritized individuals, this means getting past a challenge for many White liberals—contemplating their race’s role in oppressing minoritized individuals, especially Black individuals. Although anti-social traits predict racism, individuals who mean well and are not necessarily anti-social can still perpetuate racism. Specifically, White individuals facing racial stress may be vulnerable to a range of emotions (e.g., fear, guilt, etc.) (Grzanka et al., 2019). These emotions inform the display of behaviors that work to restore a sense of racial comfort as well as White superiority (DiAngelo et al., 2011). When affirmed, White individuals no longer feel threatened by Black people’s progress (Wilkins & Kaiser, 2014). Consistent with these ideas, White individuals scoring higher on a White “fragility” scale also endorsed modern racism, social inequalities, and allegedly colorblind racial attitudes (Langrehr et al., 2021). THREATS TO GATEKEEPERS FROM DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS IN THE UNITED STATES: THREAT, ANXIETY, AND SYSTEM-REINFORCING BEHAVIORS As discussed in the previous section, gatekeepers tend to possess several social motives that encourage the preservation of the status quo. The present section looks at how attempts to preserve the status quo, enacted at the individual and interpersonal level by gatekeepers, might be informed by larger demographic shifts. The research reviewed below shows that specific societal-level demographic shifts occurring in the United States may be perceived as a potential threat to the preservation of the status quo and a source of anxiety around this possible loss of power and status. As such, cues signaling these demographic shifts can inform individual- and interpersonal-level outcomes among gatekeepers. Even while minoritized individuals remain severely underrepresented across multiple STEMM contexts, the United States is experiencing a massive demographic shift (see Chapter 3 6-25 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

for more on this). Specifically, the population of minoritized individuals has been growing faster than White individuals, and minoritized individuals could attain majority-minority status by 2050 (Richeson & Sommers, 2016). While the percentage of non-Hispanic White individuals is decreasing over the years, scholars have noted that the changes regarding how race and ethnicity are measured and categorized through the United States Census over the years also increases the complexity of understanding the demographic shift. Nevertheless, the perception and framing of majority-minority has become more mainstream in recent political events and in the media (Craig, Rucker, & Richeson, 2018). Some researchers have focused on examining perceptions of this shift by White individuals. A body of research demonstrates that some non-Hispanic White individuals may perceive the majority-minority shift as a threat to their power and status as a member of a dominant group. Furthermore, this perceived shift is associated with greater reported feelings of anxiety, and often greater support of policies that serve to promote White dominance (i.e., maintain their position in society) (see Craig, Rucker, & Richeson, 2018 for review). Non-Hispanic White individuals’ perceptions of and outcomes associated with majority- minority shifts taking place in the United States (Perkins, Toskos Dils, & Flusberg, 2022) have been captured in a series of experiments manipulating the salience of this shift. Research has found that cues signaling a majority-minority shift were associated with perceptions of threat, and subsequently a greater tendency to perceive mixed-race faces as belonging more so to minoritized racial groups, thus demonstrating an increased tendency to uphold racial boundaries and restrict who counts as White. This phenomenon increases the number of individuals who may be targeted with discrimination, as a greater number of individuals, including those of mixed race, may be perceived as minoritized individuals (Krosch et al., 2022). Similarly, perceptions of a decreasing White demographic group were associated with feelings of existential threat, and, subsequently, support of far-right extremism as displayed by more positive feelings toward the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other alt-right and neo-Nazi groups (Bai & Frederico, 2021) and support for White supremacy (Fortunato et al., 2022). In a related series of experiments, researchers found that exposure to cues about majority-minority shifts was associated with non-Hispanic Whites’ concerns about facing anti-White discrimination (Craig & Richeson, 2017). In short, they fear experiencing the discrimination currently faced by minoritized individuals now. 6-26 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

CONCLUSIONS As the previous sections have shown, many gatekeepers tend to possess several social motives that enable the preservation of the status quo. As discussed above, these social motives include belonging, understanding and controlling resources, and esteeming and trusting. These factors contribute to advantage gatekeepers and disadvantage minoritized individuals, their position challenges the gatekeepers’ proclivity to notice, let alone remedy racism in STEMM. Furthermore, additional research demonstrated demographic shifts occurring in the United States, specifically perceptions of the “majority-minority” shift, may be perceived as a potential threat to the preservation of the status quo, and a source of anxiety around this possible loss in power and status. These perceptions can further invoke support for far-right extremism and maintenance of the White status quo. Taken all together, though not impossible, these numerous factors and cognitive biases make gatekeepers unlikely to be change agents. CONCLUSION 6-1: Like other people, gatekeepers often have attitudinal biases, cognitive mechanisms, and social motives that keep the White status quo intact. Racial bias is not only more automatic, but also more ambivalent and ambiguous than most people think. That means that individuals, including gatekeepers, may not be able to monitor their own bias impartially, and may unwittingly perpetuate it. CONCLUSION 6-2: Additional research is needed to examine the psychological impacts of perpetuating racism from the perspective of the gatekeeper in STEMM. ORGANIZATION OF THE RECOMMENDATION As discussed in the chapter and the conclusions, gatekeepers may not be able to monitor their own bias, are unlikely to become change agents themselves, and yet they are still a source of power and influence over ADEI- related outcomes in STEMM contexts. Therefore, the recommendation in the current chapter is aimed at intentionally creating links between two levels; the level of the organization and the level of the individual gatekeeper. The essence of the recommendation for this chapter involves generating systems of accountability at the organizational level, above gatekeepers, that can help identify behavioral patterns of individual gatekeepers. In turn, understanding and identifying behavioral patterns may shed light on 6-27 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

potential patterns of bias, which can be helpful for initiating top-down change to improve conditions for minoritized individuals. RECOMMENDATION 6-1: Leaders of STEMM organizations and directors of human resource offices can improve minoritized people’s individual and interpersonal experiences in STEMM educational and professional environments through the following practices: • Create organizational-level or unit-level information systems to collect data on the decisions of gatekeepers. Data collected may include, but not be limited to hiring, admissions, promotion, tenure, advancement, and awards. Data should be examined in the aggregate to identify patterns of bias exhibited by gatekeepers based on race and ethnicity. • Include responsibilities related to advancing antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion in leadership role descriptions and requirements for advancement into management. • Develop systems with more widely shared, inclusive decision-making processes and shared authority over the allocation of resources, which should limit the negative consequences that occur when gatekeeping is concentrated in a select few individuals. 6-28 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

REFERENCES Abele, A. E., Ellemers, N., Fiske, S. T., Koch, A., & Yzerbyt, V. (2021). Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychological Review, 128(2), 290. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other "authoritarian personality." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 41-92. Andersson, LM, Pearson, CM. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy Manage Rev. 1999;24:452–7 Bai, H., & Federico, C. M. (2021). White and minority demographic shifts, intergroup threat, and right- wing extremism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 94, 104114. Banaji, M. R., Fiske, S. T., & Massey, D. S. (2021). Systemic racism: individuals and interactions, institutions and society. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 6(1), 1-21. Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch Jr, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 241-255. Bergsieker, H. B., Leslie, L. M., Constantine, V. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). Stereotyping by omission: Eliminate the negative, accentuate the positive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1214-1238. Bergsieker, H. B., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected: Divergent goals in interracial interactions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 99(2), 248. Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American economic review, 94(4), 991-1013. Bianco, F., Kosic, A., & Pierro, A. (2022). The mediating role of national identification, binding foundations and perceived threat on the relationship between need for cognitive closure and prejudice against migrants in Malta. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 172-185. Blair, I.V., Dasgupta, N., & Glaser, J. (2014). Implicit Attitudes. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, E. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 1: Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 665-691). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Bobo, L. D., & Charles, C. Z. (2009). Race in the American mind: From the Moynihan report to the Obama candidacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621(1), 243- 259. Bodenhausen, G. (in press). Categorization and stereotyping. In Gilbert et al., Handbook of Social Psychology. Brandt, M. J., & Reyna, C. (2012). The functions of symbolic racism. Social Justice Research, 25(1), 41- 60. Burke, S. E., Dovidio, J. F., LaFrance, M., Przedworski, J. M., Perry, S. P., Phelan, S. M., ... & van Ryn, M. (2017). Beyond generalized sexual prejudice: Need for closure predicts negative attitudes toward bisexual people relative to gay/lesbian people. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71, 145- 150. Burkley, E., Durante, F., Fiske, S. T., Burkley, M., & Andrade, A. (2017). Structure and content of Native American stereotypic subgroups: Not just (ig)noble. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(2), 209-219. Burnette, J. L., Hoyt, C. L., Russel, V. M., Lawson, B., Dweck, C. S., & Finkel, E. (2020). A growth mind-set intervention improves interest but not academic performance in the field of computer science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(1), 107-116. Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science advances, 5(2), eaau4734. 6-29 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

Carter, D. F., Razo Dueñas, J. E., & Mendoza, R. (2019). Critical examination of the role of STEM in propagating and maintaining race and gender disparities. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 39-97. Charles, C. Z. (2000). Neighborhood racial-composition preferences: Evidence from a multiethnic metropolis. Social problems, 47(3), 379-407. Charlesworth, T. E., & Banaji, M. R. (2019). Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long-term change and stability from 2007 to 2016. Psychological science, 30(2), 174-192. Charlesworth, T. E., & Banaji, M. R. (in press). The Relationship of Implicit Social Cognition and Discriminatory Behavior. In Handbook on Economics of Discrimination and Affirmative Action (Ed., Deshpande, A.). Cheryan, S., & Markus, H. R. (2020). Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1022. Chestnut, E. K., Lei, R. F., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2018). The myth that only brilliant people are good at math and its implications for diversity. Education sciences, 8(2), 65. Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Jones, M. R., & Porter, S. R. (2020). Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: an Intergenerational Perspective. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(2), 711– 783. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz042 Chin, M. J., Quinn, D. M., Dhaliwal, T. K., & Lovison, V. S. (2020). Bias in the air: A nationwide exploration of teachers’ implicit racial attitudes, aggregate bias, and student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 566-578. Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of management, 39(6), 1579-1605. Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: a sociofunctional threat-based approach to" prejudice". Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(5), 770. Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2017). Information about the US racial demographic shift triggers concerns about anti-White discrimination among the prospective White “minority”. PloS one, 12(9), e0185389. Craig, M. A., Rucker, J. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2018). Racial and political dynamics of an approaching “majority-minority” United States. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 677(1), 204-214. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631-648. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(1), 5. Devos, T., & Anderson, K. J. (2019). Are we in or are we out? Ingroup prototypicality effects in implicit ethnic‐American associations. Japanese Psychological Research, 61(2), 65-82. Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American= white?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(3), 447 DiAngelo, R. (2011). White fragility. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3, 54–70. DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power, status, and numbers. Annual review of sociology, 33, 473. Dortch, D., & Patel, C. (2017). Black undergraduate women and their sense of belonging in STEM at predominantly White institutions. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 10(2), 202- 215. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 1–52). Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (Eds.) (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. 6-30 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(1), 62. Dovidio, J., & Gaertner, S. (2010). Intergroup Bias. Handbook of Social Psychology. 3: III: 29. Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., Du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: testing a dual process model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(1), 75. Dupree, C. H., & Fiske, S. T. (2019). Self-presentation in interracial settings: The competence downshift by white liberals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 579–604. Earle, M., & Hodson, G. (2020). Questioning white losses and anti-white discrimination in the United States. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(2), 160-168. Eberhardt, J. L., Goff, P. A., Purdie, V. J., & Davies, P. G. (2004). Seeing black: race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(6), 876. Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., Hernandez, P. R., & Schultz, P. W. (2011). Toward a model of social influence that explains minority student Fiintegration into the scientific community. Journal of educational psychology, 103(1), 206. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual review of psychology, 54(1), 297-327. Fernández, C. R., Silva, D., Mancias, P., Roldan, E. O., & Sánchez, J. P. (2021). Hispanic identity and its inclusion in the race discrimination discourse in the United States. Academic Medicine, 96(6), 788- 791. Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628. Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 941-982). New York: Wiley Fiske, S. T., Bergsieker, H. B., Russell, A. M., & Williams, L. (2009). Images of black Americans: Then,“them,” and now,“Obama!”. Du Bois review: social science research on race, 6(1), 83-101. Fiske, S. T., Bergsieker, H., Constantine, V., Dupree, C., Holoien, D. S., Kervyn, N., ... & Swencionis, J. (2015). Talking up and talking down: The power of positive speaking. Journal of Social Issues, 71(4), 834-846. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902. Fiske, S.T. (1998) Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination. In: Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T. and Lindzey, G., Eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vols. 1 and 2, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 357-411. Fortunato, O., Dierenfeldt, R., Basham, S., & McGuffee, K. (2022). Examining the impact of the Obama and Trump candidacies on right-wing domestic terrorism in the United States: a time-series analysis. Journal of interpersonal violence, 08862605221078813. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and personality psychology compass, 7(3), 199-216. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). Academic Press. Goff, P. A., Eberhardt, J. L., Williams, M. J., & Jackson, M. C. (2008). Not yet human: implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(2), 292. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4-27. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480 6-31 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

Grzanka, P. R., Gonzalez, K. A., & Spanierman, L. B. (2019). White supremacy and counseling psychology: A critical–conceptual framework. The Counseling Psychologist, 47(4), 478-529. Guinote, A. (2017). How power affects people: Activating, wanting and goal seeking. Annual review of psychology, 68, 353-381. Harris, K., Armenta, A. D., Reyna, C., & Zárate, M. A. (2020). Latinx stereotypes: Myths and realities in the twenty-first century. Stereotypes: The incidence and impacts of bias, 128-143. Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual review of psychology, 65(1), 399-423. Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in organizational behavior, 5, 269-298. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 536. Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. Greenwood Press. Henry, P. J., & Sears, D. O. (2002). The symbolic racism 2000 scale. Political psychology, 23(2), 253- 283. Ho, A. K., Kteily, N. S., & Chen, J. M. (2017). “You’re one of us”: Black Americans’ use of hypodescent and its association with egalitarianism. Journal of personality and social psychology, 113(5), 753. Ho, A. K., Kteily, N. S., & Chen, J. M. (2020). Introducing the sociopolitical motive× intergroup threat model to understand how monoracial perceivers’ sociopolitical motives influence their categorization of multiracial people. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(3), 260-286. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Cuddy, A. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2013). Status boundary enforcement and the categorization of black–white biracials. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 940-943. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., ... & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003. Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009). The role of “dark personalities”(narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 686-690. Jacoby-Senghor, D. S., Sinclair, S., & Smith, C. T. (2015). When bias binds: Effect of implicit outgroup bias on ingroup affiliation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 109(3), 415. Jahoda, M., & West, P. S. (1951). Race relations in public housing. Journal of Social Issues, 7(1‐2), 132- 139. Janoff-Bulman, R. (in press). The two moralities: Conservatives, liberal, and the roots of our political divide. New Haven: Yale. Jardina, A., & Piston, S. (2022). The Effects of Dehumanizing Attitudes about Black People on Whites’ Voting Decisions. British Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 1076-1098. doi:10.1017/S0007123421000089 Jonason, P. K., Underhill, D., & Navarrate, C. D. (2020). Understanding prejudice in terms of approach tendencies: The Dark Triad traits, sex differences, and political personality traits. Personality and individual differences, 153, 109617. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the production of false consciousness. British journal of social psychology, 33(1), 1-27. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political psychology, 25(6), 881- 919 Jost, J. T., Rudman, L. A., Blair, I. V., Carney, D. R., Dasgupta, N., Glaser, J., & Hardin, C. D. (2009). The existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore. Research in organizational behavior, 29, 39-69. 6-32 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

Jost, J., & Hunyady, O. (2003). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European review of social psychology, 13(1), 111-153. Kabat-Farr, D., Settles, I. H., & Cortina, L. M. (2020). Selective incivility: an insidious form of discrimination in organizations. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933) Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 28:280–290 Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: the biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(4), 686. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological review, 110(2), 265. Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2015). Foretelling the primary dimension of social cognition: Symbolic and realistic threats together predict warmth in the stereotype content model. Social Psychology, 46, 36-45. Koehn, M. A., Jonason, P. K., & Davis, M. D. (2019). A person-centered view of prejudice: The Big Five, Dark Triad, and prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 313-316. Krosch, A. R., Park, S. J., Walker, J., & Lisner, A. R. (2022). The threat of a majority-minority US alters white Americans' perception of race. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 99, 104266. Kruglanski, A. W. (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 333–368). The Guilford Press. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind:“Seizing” and “freezing”. The motivated mind, 60-103. Kteily, N. S., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., & Ho, A. K. (2017). Hierarchy in the eye of the beholder:(Anti-) egalitarianism shapes perceived levels of social inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(1), 136. Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 109(5), 901. Kubota, J. T., & Ito, T. (2017). Rapid race perception despite individuation and accuracy goals. Social neuroscience, 12(4), 468-478. Kurdi, B., Seitchik, A. E., Axt, J. R., Carroll, T. J., Karapetyan, A., Kaushik, N., ... & Banaji, M. R. (2019). Relationship between the Implicit Association Test and intergroup behavior: A meta- analysis. American psychologist, 74(5), 569. Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in society, 1(1), 97-120. LaCosse, J., & Plant, E. A. (2020). Internal motivation to respond without prejudice fosters respectful responses in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5), 1037. Langbert, M. (2018). Homogenous: The political affiliations of elite liberal arts college faculty. Academic Questions, 31(2), 186-197. Langrehr, K. J., Watson, L. B., Keramidas, A., & Middleton, S. (2021). The development and initial validation of the White Fragility Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Lee, M. J., Collins, J. D., Harwood, S. A., Mendenhall, R., & Huntt, M. B. (2020). “If you aren’t White, Asian or Indian, you aren’t an engineer”: racial microaggressions in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-16. Lee, T. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Not an outgroup, but not yet an ingroup: Immigrants in the stereotype content model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 751-768. Lehman, D. R., Lempert, R. O., & Nisbett, R. E. (1988). The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. American Psychologist, 43(6), 431. Leonardelli, G. J. and Toh, S. M. (2015), Social Categorization in Intergroup Contexts: Three Kinds of Self-Categorization, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 69– 87, doi: 10.1111/spc3.12150 6-33 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

Li D, Koedel C. 2017. Representation and salary gaps by race-ethnicity and gender at selective public universities. Educational Researcher 46: 343–354. Lin, M. H., Kwan, V. S. Y., Cheung, A., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Stereotype content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of Anti-Asian American Stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 34-47. Logan, A. C., Prescott, S. L., & Katz, D. L. (2019). Golden age of medicine 2.0: lifestyle medicine and planetary health prioritized. Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 9(2), 75. Mahalingam, R. (2003). Essentialism, culture, and power: Representations of social class. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 733-749. Martin, R. J., & Hine, D. W. (2005). Development and validation of the uncivil workplace behavior questionnaire. Journal of occupational health psychology, 10(4), 477. Major, B., & O'Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual review of psychology, 56(1), 393-421. Mandalaywala, T. M., Amodio, D. M., & Rhodes, M. (2018). Essentialism promotes racial prejudice by increasing endorsement of social hierarchies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(4), 461-469. McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). Academic Press. Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.009 Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., Fein, S., Savitsky, K. K., Tuller, D. M., & Monin, B. (2012). The strategic pursuit of moral credentials. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 774-777. Miles, M. L., Brockman, A. J., & Naphan‐Kingery, D. E. (2020). Invalidated identities: the disconfirming effects of racial microaggressions on Black doctoral students in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(10), 1608-1631. Miriti, M. N. (2020). The elephant in the room: race and STEM diversity. BioScience, 70(3), 237-242. Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(1), 33. Muenks, K., Canning, E. A., LaCosse, J., Green, D. J., Zirkel, S., Garcia, J. A., & Murphy, M. C. (2020). Does my professor think my ability can change? Students’ perceptions of their STEM professors’ mindset beliefs predict their psychological vulnerability, engagement, and performance in class. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(11), 2119. Muradoglu, M., Horne, Z., Hammond, M. D., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2022). Women—particularly underrepresented minority women—and early-career academics feel like impostors in fields that value brilliance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(5), 1086. National Archives (no date). Civil Rights Act 1964. Retrieved From https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act National Research Council, (2001). America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9599. Nelson DJ, Brammer CN, Rhoads H . 2010. A national analysis of minorities in science and engineering faculties at research universities Advance UC Davis Neuberg, S. L., Judice, T. N., & West, S. G. (1997). What the Need for Closure Scale measures and what it does not: Toward differentiating among related epistemic motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1396–1412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1396 Nicolas, G., Bai, X., & Fiske, S. T. (2021). Comprehensive stereotype content dictionaries using a semi- automated method. European Journal of Social Psychology Oh, R. (2020). Dehumanization, Immigrants, and Equal Protection. California Western Law Review, 56(1), 5. 6-34 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

Oliver, J.E., & Wong, J. (2003). Intergroup prejudice in multiethnic settings. American journal of political science, 47(4), 567-582. Patterson, Christina A., "Increasing Knowledge and Detection of Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions in White College Students" (2017). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 6509. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of research in personality, 36(6), 556-563. Peacock, N., & Biernat, M. (2021). Race, politics, and perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination over time. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13684302211040107. Pérez, E. O. (2010). Explicit evidence on the import of implicit attitudes: The IAT and immigration policy judgments. Political Behavior, 32(4), 517-545. Perkins, K. M., Toskos Dils, A., & Flusberg, S. J. (2022). The perceived threat of demographic shifts depends on how you think the economy works. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(1), 227- 246. Pietraszewski, D. (2018). A reanalysis of crossed-dimension “Who Said What?” paradigm studies, using a better error base-rate correction. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(5), 479-489. Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(3), 811 Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2003). The antecedents and implications of interracial anxiety. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 29(6), 790-801. Poitra, C. M., & Norder, J. (2019). Implicit Bias and the “In/visible Indian” in the Classroom. In Handbook of Children and Prejudice (pp. 181-191). Springer, Cham. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(4), 741. Rankin, L. E., Jost, J. T., & Wakslak, C. J. (2009). System justification and the meaning of life: Are the existential benefits of ideology distributed unequally across racial groups?. Social Justice Research, 22(2), 312-333. Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2012). How “dark” are the Dark Triad traits? Examining the perceived darkness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(7), 884-889. Richeson, J. (in press). Race and racism. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, W.B. Mendes, & E. Finkel (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology. Richeson, J. A., & Sommers, S. R. (2016). Toward a social psychology of race and race relations for the twenty-first century. Annual review of psychology, 67, 439-463. Riddle, T., & Sinclair, S. (2019). Racial disparities in school-based disciplinary actions are associated with county-level rates of racial bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(17), 8255-8260. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1808307116 Ridgeway, C. L. (2019). Status: Why is it everywhere? Why does it matter?. Russell Sage Foundation. Roberts, S. O., Ho, A. K., Rhodes, M., & Gelman, S. A. (2017). Making boundaries great again: Essentialism and support for boundary-enhancing initiatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(12), 1643-1658. Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2007). Separating ability from need: Clarifying the dimensional structure of the need for closure scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 266-280. Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Allport’s prejudiced personality today: Need for closure as the motivated cognitive basis of prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 349-354. Rosenthal, R. & Jacobsenm, L (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Rudman, L. A., & Ashmore, R. D. (2007). Discrimination and the implicit association test. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(3), 359-372. 6-35 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

Schudson, Z. C., & Gelman, S. A. (2022). Social constructionist and essentialist beliefs about gender and race. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13684302211070792. Schuman, H., Steeh, C., & Bobo, L. (1985). Racial attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations (Vol. 2). Harvard University Press. Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997). Racial attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sears, D. O., Henry, P. J., & Kosterman, R. (2000). Egalitarian values and the origins of contemporary American racism. Racialized politics: The debate about racism in America, 75-117. Shah, J. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(2), 383. Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(1), 91. Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Interracial interactions: A relational approach. Advances in experimental social psychology, 38, 121-181. Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., & Vorauer, J. D. (2006). Threatened identities and interethnic interactions. European review of social psychology, 17(1), 321-358. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248-279. Sinclair, S., Lowery, B. S., Hardin, C. D., & Colangelo, A. (2005). Social tuning of automatic racial attitudes: the role of affiliative motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(4), 583. Smelser, N. J., Wilson, W. J., & Mitchell, F. (2001). America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, Volume 1. National Academies Press. Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of personality and social psychology, 93(3), 431. Smith, K. C., Poleacovschi, C., Feinstein, S., & Luster-Teasley, S. (2022). Ethnicity, Race, and Gender in Engineering Education: The Nuanced Experiences of Male and Female Latinx Engineering Undergraduates Targeted by Microaggressions. Psychological Reports, 00332941221075766. Starck, J. G., Sinclair, S., & Shelton, J. N. (2021). How university diversity rationales inform student preferences and outcomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(16), e2013833118. Storage, D., Horne, Z., Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S. J. (2016). The frequency of “brilliant” and “genius” in teaching evaluations predicts the representation of women and African Americans across fields. PloS one, 11(3), e0150194. Sue, D.W. (Ed.), Microaggressions and Marginality: Manifestation, Dynamics, and Impact, John Wiley & Sons (2010) Swencionis, J. K., & Fiske, S. T. (2016). Promote up, ingratiate down: Status comparisons drive warmth- competence tradeoffs in impression management. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 27- 34. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual review of psychology, 33(1), 1-39. Talaska, C. A., Fiske, S. T., & Chaiken, S. (2008). Legitimating racial discrimination: Emotions, not beliefs, best predict discrimination in a meta-analysis. Social justice research, 21(3), 263-296. Theodorou, A., & Kosic, A. (2021). Need for closure, morality, and prejudice: The relationship between the need for closure, stereotyped in-group and out-group morality, and prejudice toward the out- group. Social Psychology. Thomann, C. R., & Suyemoto, K. L. (2018). Developing an antiracist stance: How White youth understand structural racism. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(6), 745-771. Torelli, C. J., Leslie, L. M., To, C., & Kim, S. (2020). Power and status across cultures. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 12-17. Torino, G. C., Rivera, D. P., Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., & Sue, D. W. (2019). Microaggression theory: Influence and implications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 6-36 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs 

Turetsky, K. M., Sinclair, S., Starck, J. G., & Shelton, J. N. (2021). Beyond students: how teacher psychology shapes educational inequality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(8), 697-709United States Code (USC) (n.d.) Retrieved from: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title42-chapter21- subchapter6&saved=%7CKHRpdGxlOjQyIHNlY3Rpb246MjAwMGUtMiBlZGl0aW9uOnB yZWxpbSk%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim&edition=prelim Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062 Whitley Jr, B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(1), 126. Wilkins, C. L., & Kaiser, C. R. (2014). Racial progress as threat to the status hierarchy: Implications for perceptions of anti-White bias. Psychological science, 25(2), 439-446. Williams, D.R., González, H.M., Williams, S., Mohammed, S.A., Moomal, H, Stein, D.J. “Perceived Discrimination, Race and Health in South Africa: Findings from the South Africa Stress and Health Study.” Social Science and Medicine, 2008; 67: 441-452. Williams, DR, Yan, Y, Jackson, JS, et al. (1997) Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socio- economic status, stress and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology 2(3): 335–351. Word, C. O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of experimental social psychology, 10(2), 109-120. Yu, A., Hays, N. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2019). Development of a bipartite measure of social hierarchy: The perceived power and perceived status scales. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 84-104. 6-37 Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proofs