Author(s) This pre-registration is currently anonymous to enable blind peer-review. It has one author.
Pre-registered on 2021/05/31 - 08:16 AM (PT)
1) Have any data been collected for this study already? No, no data have been collected for this study yet.
2) What's the main question being asked or hypothesis being tested in this study? Three main hypotheses:
(1) Does personality (as measured by the HEXACO; Ashton & Lee, 2004) predict anti-White bias among European Black minority group members? We specifically predict that three dimensions - which were shown to relate to anti-White bias in our previous study - will be negatively related to anti-White bias, i.e., agreeableness, honesty-humility and emotionality.
(2) Does anti-White bias predict relevant reactions (attributions to discrimination/racism, approval of ambiguously racist behavior, punitive responding, perceived perpetrator responsibility, emotions towards the victim/perpetrator) to two scenarios describing two contemporary issues, i.e., a police shooting a Black man, and (2) an ingroup member committing a crime.
(3) Does anti-White bias predict attitudes towards various contemporary topics/events (action plans to reduce structural racism in the EU and in European soccer, multiculturalism, the unemployment gap between Black minority group members and White majority group members in the EU, the colonization of Africa, immigration attitudes, affirmative action)?
3) Describe the key dependent variable(s) specifying how they will be measured. 1) Dependent variables: scenarios
* attribution to discrimination/racism: "Part of why the officer chose to shoot the suspect was the suspect's race", "The event described in the police report reflects the presence of racism in our society" And "The suspect would not have been shot if he were a different race" (police shooting); "Part of why Sihame El Kaouakibi was accused was her race/ethnicity", "The accusations reflect the presence of racism in our society", "Sihame El Kaouakibi would not have been accused if she were a different race/ethnicity". ( ingroup member crime)
* Approval of ambiguously racist behavior: "I feel that the police officer had good cause for the shooting" and "I support the actions of the police officer." (police shooting)
* Punitive responding: "The police officer should serve time in jail", "The police officer should lose his job", "The police officer should be criminally indicted", "The suspect should file criminal charges against the police officer", "I would support financial compensation for the suspect if I were a juror in a civil trial". (police shooting); "Sihame El Kaouakibi should serve time in jail", "Sihame El Kaouakibi should lose her job as a politician", "Sihame El Kaouakibi should be criminally indicted", "I would find Sihame El Kaouakibi guilty if I were a juror in a civil trial". (ingroup member crime)
* Perceived perpetrator responsibility: "I feel that the police officer is fully responsible for the injuries to the suspect", "I feel that the suspect is partially responsible for his injuries (because he ran away and reached in his bag", "I feel that the suspect deserved the shooting (because he ran away and reached in his bag" (police shooting); "I feel that Sihame El Kaouakibi is fully responsible for her actions and should be charged with fraud.", "I feel that there must be an alternative explanation for the alleged charges", "I feel that Sihame El Kaouakibi is the target of political rivalry". (ingroup member crime)
* Emotions towards the victim: ""To what extent do you have the following feelings towards the suspect (i.e., the police officer)? …To rate your feelings, please use a scale from 1 = not at all, to 5 = very much….sympathy, warmth, compassion, anger, disgust, outrage"
* Emotions towards the perpetrator: "To what extent do you have the following feelings towards the suspect (i.e., Sihame El Kaouakibi)? …To rate your feelings, please use a scale from 1 = not at all, to 5 = very much….sympathy, warmth, compassion, anger, disgust, outrage" (ingroup member crime)
2) Dependent variables: contemporary topics/events: see our Open Science Framework webpage: https://osf.io/gafyk/?view_only=cde82fd310ea4b94b72256777b81edb6
4) How many and which conditions will participants be assigned to? No conditions, correlational study.
5) Specify exactly which analyses you will conduct to examine the main question/hypothesis. For the scenarios, we make the following predictions:
(1) r = .30, for the relationship between our measure of anti-White bias and attributions to discrimination/racism
(2) r = .15, for the relationship between our measure of anti-White bias and punitive responding (police shooting), perceived perpetrator responsibility (police shooting), negative emotions towards the perpetrator (police shooting), positive emotions towards the victim (police shooting)
(3) r = .00, for the relationship between our measure of anti-White bias and approval of negative ingroup behavior (ingroup member crime), perceived perpetrator responsibility (ingroup member crime), negative emotions towards the perpetrator (ingroup member crime)
(4) r = -.15 for the relationship between our measure of anti-White bias and approval of ambiguously racist behavior
For the contemporary topics, we make the following predictions:
(1) r = .30, for the relationship between our measure of anti-White bias and attributions to discrimination/racism (employment gap, Merkel), importance of measures to tackle discrimination (EU, soccer, AA), doubting the intentions (EU, soccer) and usefulness (EU, soccer) of these measures, sympathy for those protesting (colonialism), punitive responding towards Belgium (colonialism), support for cause protesters (colonialism), importance of AA
(2) r = .00, for the relationship between our measure of anti-White bias and attitudes towards polyculturalism, attitudes towards immigration
(3) r = -.30, for the relationship between our measure of anti-White bias and attribution towards other factors than discrimination (unemployment gap), punitive responding towards those protesting (colonialism)
See our Open Science webpage, for an exhaustive overview of preregistered analyses.
6) Describe exactly how outliers will be defined and handled, and your precise rule(s) for excluding observations. Participants will be excluded if:
(1) they do not fit one of the following criteria:
* fluent in English
* originate from Sub-Saharan Africa or the Caribbean
* currently residing in the European Union.
(2) they correctly guess the study's hypothesis
(3) because their answer to the hypothesis question does not make any sense (e.g., "Yes" or "Estimate")
(4) they fail at least one of our attention checks ("please select the third response for this question")
7) How many observations will be collected or what will determine sample size? No need to justify decision, but be precise about exactly how the number will be determined. Sample size calculation was based on (1) the smallest observed correlation between personality and anti-White bias in our previous study (i.e., .14), and (2) the smallest predicted correlation between anti-White bias and attitudes towards and reactions to social events/issues(i.e., .15). Power calculations with the pwr package (Champely, 2020) revealed that 371 participants would be sufficient to achieve 80% power to detect a correlation of the aforementioned magnitude (with alpha = .05). Given that we expected some attrition due to the two measurement occasions - personality and anti-White bias were measured at T1, and reactions to the scenarios and contemporary events approximately a week later- we thus oversampled and aimed to recruit 400 participants.
8) Anything else you would like to pre-register? (e.g., secondary analyses, variables collected for exploratory purposes, unusual analyses planned?) No.
