Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
#BLM or #ALM: accessible perspective shapes downstream judgment even among people high in social dominance
(USC Thesis Other)
#BLM or #ALM: accessible perspective shapes downstream judgment even among people high in social dominance
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Copyright 2022 Amabel Youngbin Jeon
#BLM OR #ALM: ACCESSIBLE PERSPECTIVE SHAPES DOWNSTREAM JUDGMENT
EVEN AMONG PEOPLE HIGH IN SOCIAL DOMINANCE
by
Amabel Youngbin Jeon
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC DORNSIFE COLLEGE OF LETTERS, ARTS AND SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)
August 2022
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
Study 1: Accessible Perspective and Judgment Ratings ..................................................................7
Methods................................................................................................................................7
Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................8
Study 2: Inclusion of an Eyewitness Account ...............................................................................12
Methods..............................................................................................................................12
Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................12
Study 3: Pre-Registered Replication of Study ...............................................................................16
Methods..............................................................................................................................16
Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................17
General Discussion ........................................................................................................................19
References ......................................................................................................................................23
Tables .............................................................................................................................................30
Figures............................................................................................................................................38
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................41
Supplemental Materials .................................................................................................................44
iii
Abstract
The ubiquity of smartphones and social media means people can rapidly disseminate accounts of
contested interactions from the perspective of subordinate figures (student, member of the
public). This challenges the monopoly that the dominant authority figures (teacher, officer) have
over the initial accounts. We suspected that first accounts matter, shaping how people evaluate
each agent (subordinate, authority figure) and find them credible. In three studies, one pre-
registered, we randomized people to read either first-person vignettes presented from an
authority figure’s perspective (teacher/officer) or a subordinate’s perspective (student/motorist).
After reading, all participants rated both the dominant and the subordinate character. People took
the given perspective, judging the character whose account they read more favorably and the
other character unfavorably. Initial perspective mattered even for people high in social
dominance. Given that the dominant perspective is typically heard first, our present findings
suggest that public opinion is unlikely to shift unless the subordinate’s perspective is made
accessible first.
1
#BLM or #ALM: Accessible Perspective Shapes Downstream Judgment Even Among
People High in Social Dominance
Black people are at greater risk of being targets of police violence (Chaney & Robertson,
2013; Krieger et al., 2015; Terrill & Reisig, 2003) and of disciplinary action in schools (Dancy,
2014; Gregory & Weinstein, 2008; Owen & McLanahan, 2020; Riddle & Sinclair, 2019). Black
people almost 3 times more likely to be killed by the police than white people (DeAngelis,
2021), and Black students are up to 3.8 times more likely than white students to receive
disciplinary action (Riddle & Sinclair, 2019). Nevertheless, until recently, neither of these
disproportionate outcomes attracted widespread public attention nor galvanized the general
public to sustain their demand for change (Peffley & Hurwitz, 2007; Yeager et al., 2017). This
lack of attention is likely caused by various individual and institutional processes and practices
that together create marginality.
After all, deceased people cannot speak for themselves, and children are assumed to be
less credible than adults. As a result, realizing that there is a problem in the first place may not
come to public awareness. In the current paper, we consider one institutional process which is
likely to dampen the likelihood that the public sees the authority figure rather than the
subordinates as liable in these outcomes. Specifically, we focus on the fact that the perspective of
the police or the school is presented first and is often the only perspective presented to the public
via the news media.
The Status Quo: Precedence of an Authority Figure’s Perspective
Police accounts typically highlight the culpability of the public members involved in the
incident (Smiley & Fakunle, 2016), and the same occurs in schools (Baker, 2019). When the
status quo limits the perspective to that of an authority figure, it leaves the possibility of
2
profiling, systemic bias, and excessive force to hide invisibly in the shadows. It also may set the
stage for almost any police or school disciplinary action to seem reasonable, especially if the
case is made that others would act the same way given the situation.
An example of the authority figure’s perspective influencing what is considered
reasonable is codified as the “objective reasonableness” standard in Graham v. Connor, 1989 by
the Supreme Court, encouraging the jurors to take the perspective of the police when evaluating
the excessive use of force claims. Indeed, jurors seem to apply this standard even in cases in
which police action resulted in the killing of unarmed Black people who posed no threat to the
public or the police (Peralta & Chappell, 2014). In one of the most extreme cases in U.S. history,
lynching was justified under the widely accepted assumption that the innate criminality of Black
people posed a threat to the public (Francis, 2022). These instances of violence against the Black
community likely persisted due to people in authority position committing violence and
justifying their actions as an appropriate response to Black people’s ostensible wrongdoings.
In most interactions, teachers and police have higher power as official representatives of
the state with the capacity to coerce obedience (e.g., French & Raven, 1959; Keltner et al., 2003)
which might also contribute to the public deferral to their perspectives. Moreover, marginality
may require a defiant response (Spencer et al., 2004). Whether or not it is intended, like the
police (McKinney de Royston et al., 2021), teachers may differentially perceive their African
American students as adults (Dancy, 2014; Goff et al., 2014; Ferguson, 2020) who are
threatening or defying them, justifying a punitive response (Baker, 2019; Okonofua & Eberhardt,
2015) that thereby perpetrates a failure cycle (e.g., “school-to-prison pipeline”; Skiba,
Arredondo, & Williams, 2014).
3
Different Forms of Media Maintaining or Challenging the Status Quo
Notably, the news media plays an essential role in bringing public attention to a specific
perspective by choosing what information to include and exclude (i.e., news frame; Entman,
1993). In the case of Michael Brown and his death in 2014, the general public news media
mainly focused on the conflict between the police and the protestors in Ferguson rather than the
story of Michael Brown and the social cause behind the protests (Riddle et al., 2020). By framing
the story as a conflict between the protestors and the police, the news media perpetuated the
narrative that the police are forced to deal with seemingly violent and unruly protestors (McLeod
& Detenber, 1999), justifying any state-sanctioned violence used against the protestors. As a
result, the police's perspective (dealing with violent protestors) preceded the Black community's
perspective (addressing police brutality), undermining the legitimacy of the social cause and the
demands.
Recently, the ubiquitous use of cellphones and social media has provided the
marginalized community with tools to document incidents of police violence and contest broad
media representations that upheld the monopolized voices of the authority figures (De
Choudhury et al., 2016; Freelon, McIlwain, & Clark, 2016). In contrast to the well-known
footage of violence against Rodney King in 1991 that disseminated through the filters of the
news media, information surrounding recent police killings are now shared instantaneously
through social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, TikTok) that allow more freedom to the public to
decide which details and what narratives to include. Bringing forth the subordinate’s account,
when provided, matters.
An outstanding example of this was in 2020, when a young teenager uploaded a lengthy
video of a police officer named Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck and ultimately
4
killing him. Seeing the video unfiltered by a police report highlighted to many members of the
public that whatever the cause of the arrest, the officer involved treated Floyd with a shocking
disregard and lack of respect for his human dignity. For many people, taking a more first-person
perspective of the experience of Floyd lifted the veil of invisibility of systemic racism even
though they later heard the alternative perspective - that Floyd was deserving of the police
response. Though the video did not show what started the arrest, it was long enough to document
that what happened before was irrelevant and the response was overly punitive. Unlike most of
the stories retelling instances of police violence, the video was not just a snapshot of what
happened but rather a sustained narrative.
In response to viral videos of police violence, Black Lives Matter (#BLM) movement
focused on the target of police attention – the subordinate’s perspective. In contrast, the All
Lives Matter (#ALM) or the Blue Lives Matter counter-movements continued to take the
perspective of the police, maintaining the status quo. This same reckoning that many people have
for racial disparities in the police system has not yet happened in school settings. Indeed, in
school settings neither perspective typically reaches the public; teachers and students are left on
their own to attempt to make sense of one another’s motives (Gehlbach et al., 2012; Warren,
2013).
When Provided, the Subordinate’s Perspective Matters
What perspective is accessible matters. What information is accessible at the time greatly
influences how people make judgments of others (Schwarz, 2007). When provided with a
perspective of another person, people treat other people with more empathy due to greater
understanding of that person’s perceptions, motivations, and emotions (Batson, 1991; Davis,
1983; Davis et al., 1996; Lamm, Batson, & Decety, 2007). Indeed, simply showing or naming a
5
Black victim can humanize and individuate them when given marginalizing racial frames
(Richeson & Sommers, 2016; Weitzer, 2015).
However, we consider the possibility of bringing forth the subordinate’s perspective to
change public opinion co-occurring with an alternative possibility of individual differences in the
propensity to defer to the perspective of the person higher in the position of an existing
hierarchy. Social dominance orientation is a scale that operationalizes this deference to the
authority (SDO; Fischer, Hanke, & Sibley, 2012; Pratto et al., 1994). People who score higher in
social dominance express more prejudice against, and less empathy, tolerance, and altruism for
people who are members of low-status groups (Lee, Pratto, & Johnson, 2011; Levin et al., 2002;
Pratto et al., 1994). Indeed, SDO predicts a wide range of secondary beliefs that reinforce group-
based dominance while maintaining the unequal status quo across a range of cultures (Ho et al.,
2012). These beliefs include nationalism (Osborne, Milojev, & Sibley, 2017; Sidanius et al.,
1997), political conservatism (Hiel & Mervielde, 2002; Sidanius et al., 2000), sexism (Austin &
Jackson, 2019; Eagly et al., 2004), homophobia (Whitley & Lee, 2000), and racism (Hiel &
Mervielde, 2002). Thus, the implication is that social dominance orientation carries with it a
preference for higher status groups which may maintain a positive evaluation of them, decreasing
the likelihood of blaming people with authority in an interaction and increasing their credibility.
Current Studies
Given our review of the literature, we predicted that people take on the perspective that is
made accessible to them, positively evaluating and finding credible whichever side they are led
to take in interactions between a people who differ in the authority or status vested in them as
part of their social role in the interaction. In Studies 2 and 3, we also examined the effect of
eyewitness testimony, randomly assigning people to receive or not receive non-probative
6
eyewitness testimony. We predicted that once a perspective is made accessible people’s
judgments would be strengthened by eyewitness testimony even if the testimony was not
informative. More specifically, we predicted that people would find the perspective more
credible after reading an eyewitness testimony.
We did not find research examining the relationship between accessibility of a
perspective and social dominance and hence we explored across Studies 1-3 whether social
dominance has a main effect separate from taking a particular perspective or if it moderates the
effect of taking a particular perspective (enhancing the effect of taking the authority’s
perspective and dampening the effect of taking the more subordinate person’s perspective).
Given the literature on social dominance, we explored whether political conservatism (including
social and economic conservatism) is associated with higher social dominance scores and if once
social dominance is taken into account, political conservatism no longer affects character ratings
or credibility of accounts. We also included in Study 3 individuals’ belief in a just world (for
review, see Furnham, 2003) to explore whether system justifying function to perpetuate the
status quo similarly like social dominance will also have a main effect on the positive evaluation
of the authority and negative evaluation of the subordinate.
We created four first-person narratives and randomly assigned participants to either read
one (Study 1) or two (Studies 2 and 3) narratives from the perspective of the person in the
authority role (teacher, police officer) or the perspective of the person in the subordinate role
(student, motorist). In Table 1, we provide summaries of our motorist-police narratives, a version
of “driving while Black'' in which a motorist seems suspicious due to race, and our student-
teacher narratives, a version of “school-to-prison pipeline” in which a student seems threatening
rather threatened. We provide full texts of our narratives in the Appendix. We did not use gender
7
or race cues in any of our narratives. In Studies 2 and 3, we also randomly assigned people to
read or not read non-probative eyewitness testimony that provided support for the uncontested
claim that something happened (e.g., I saw something happening) but not support for either
perspective. We provide these narratives in Table 1 and our Appendix as well.
Study 1: Accessible Perspective and Judgment Ratings
Method
Participants. Participants were undergraduate students at the University of Southern
California who received course credit in exchange for their participation in the study (N = 177,
Females 68.6%, two largest racial-ethnic groups represented are White 36.6%, and East Asian,
23.4%). See Table S1 in Supplemental materials for full details of demographics and descriptive
information on our sample. We conducted Study 1 in the Fall semester, collecting data from the
start of the semester until the end of the semester (stop rule) - we did not conduct an a priori
power analysis given the initial nature of the study.
Procedure. We randomly assigned participants to read one vignette out of four vignettes.
Two vignettes were from a higher authority character (teacher, officer) and two vignettes were
from a more subordinate character (student, motorist).
As a manipulation check, we then asked participants “Whose perspective was highlighted
in this situation?” and 98.9% passed, correctly reporting the perspective they read. We gave
participants a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) to rate each of the
two characters they read about (a teacher and a student or a police officer and a motorist) on five
attributes (empathy, relatability, culpability, punishment, and justification).
Specifically, we asked participants to respond to the following questions twice, in one set
we filled in the character whose perspective they received: either teacher or student; police
8
officer or motorist. In the second set, we filled in the other character in the scenario. This way
respondents in the school condition rated both the teacher and the student and respondents in the
traffic stop condition rated both the police officer and the motorist in the following five ways: “If
you were in their shoes, would you have responded like the [teacher/student; police
officer/motorist]?” (empathy). “How much could you relate to the [teacher/student; police
officer/motorist]?” (relatability). “How much of the event was caused by the [teacher/student;
police officer/motorist] actions?” (culpability). “How appropriate was the [opposite character’s]
response to the [character’s] actions?” (punishment). “Was the way the [character] responded
justified or unjustified given the [opposite character’s] actions?” (justification). Responses were
correlated (see Table S2 in Supplemental Materials) and so we obtained a mean subordinate
rating (M = 3.92, SD = 1.36, α = 0.87) and a mean authority figure rating (M = 3.54, SD = 1.41,
α = 0.90).
Then they rated the credibility of the account they read: “How much did you find the
account you read to be credible (a good representation of what really happened)?” and indicated
the age, social-class, gender, and race of each character in the vignette they read. We had no
predictions for age, social class, and gender, using these as filler items. Next, they used the same
7-point response scale to fill out Ho and colleagues (2015) 8-item social dominance scale
(sample item: “Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.”; Table 2 provides
descriptive statistics and scale reliabilities, M, SD, and α.
Results and Discussion
Perspective matters. We tested our accessible perspective prediction separately for
authority and subordinate target character in two linear regressions with perspective condition as
the predictor (see Table 2 for more details). When rating the subordinate target, our model
9
explained 40.2% of the variance, with perspective condition significantly predicting subordinate
character ratings, F(1, 175) = 119.1, p < .001. When rating the authority figure target, our model
explained 28.1% of the variance with perspective condition significantly predicting authority
figure character rating, F(1, 175) = 69.6, p < .001. Adding setting (school or traffic stop) to the
models did not yield significant interaction effects in either regression, ps = .87, .99.
As we detail in Tables 3 and 4 and depict graphically in Figure 1, people who were
randomly assigned to read the subordinate’s perspective rated the subordinate significantly more
positively and the authority figure significantly less positively than people randomly assigned to
read the authority figure’s perspective. People randomly assigned to the subordinate’s
perspective rated subordinate target character significantly above a 4, the neutral midpoint of the
scale (M = 4.77, SD = 1.05), t(89) = 6.92, p < .001, d = 0.73, and rated the authority target
character significantly below the neutral midpoint of the scale (M = 2.80, SD = 1.25), t(89) = -
9.08, p < .001, d = 0.96. We found the same pattern, in reverse, for people randomly assigned to
read the authority figure’s perspective. They rated the subordinate figure negatively, significantly
below the scale’s neutral midpoint, M = 3.04, SD = 1.05, t(86) = -8.5, p < .001, d = 0.91, while
rating the authority figure positively, significantly above the scale’s neutral midpoint, M = 4.30,
SD = 1.13, t(86) = 2.46, p = .016, d = 0.26.
For credibility, participants found whichever perspective they received relatively
credible, condition did not significantly affect credibility, F(1, 175) = 3.24, p = .07, and scores in
the subordinate (M = 4.26, SD = 1.36) and authority figure (M = 3.89, SD = 1.38) conditions
were both near the neutral midpoint of the scale, t(89) = 1.78, p = .08, t(86) = -0.78, p = .43.
Social dominance matters but perspective matters more. Table 2 details descriptive
statistics of social dominance and its relationship with condition, conservatism, and ratings. To
10
explore the possible main and moderating effects of social dominance, we added social
dominance scores to our regression equations predicting the effect of condition on rating of the
subordinate and authority figures, and the credibility of the perspective provided. In each
regression, we included condition and centered social dominance score main effects at step 1 and
their interaction at step 2.
As we detail in Table 3, when social dominance was added to the regression predicting
ratings of the subordinate character, the main effect of condition remained significant, and we
found a main effect of social dominance; at step 2, we also found a social dominance x condition
interaction, which significantly increased variation explained by 2.8%, F(3, 172) = 53.56, p
< .001. Similarly with regard to the regression predicting ratings of the authority figure, the main
effect of condition remained significant and we found a main of effect social dominance; at step
2, we also found a social dominance x condition interaction, F(3, 172) = 46.16, p < .001.
To unpack the significant interaction for character ratings, in Figure 2, we plotted the
ratings of people high in social dominance (scores of M + 1 SD) and people low in social
dominance (scores of M - 1 SD) in each perspective condition. Although people high in social
dominance judged the subordinate more harshly and the authority figure more favorably for both
perspective conditions, the same pattern of rating the character of the perspective given
positively and rating the character of the perspective not given negatively emerged for both
people high and low in social dominance. Notably, people high in social dominance given the
subordinate’s perspective rated the subordinate character more positively than the authority
figure character.
For credibility, when social dominance was added, the effect of condition remained non-
significant as detailed in Table 3 and we found a main effect of social dominance in finding the
11
perspective provided credible for people reading the subordinate’s perspective F(1, 87) = 12.64,
p < .001, and for people reading the authority figure’s perspective, F(1, 85) = 6.33, p = .014. We
found a condition x social dominance interaction with people higher in social dominance being
more likely to favor the authority figure regardless of the condition.
Conservatism: an exploratory variable. Participants’ conservatism was correlated with
their social dominance score, with people who described themselves as conservate scoring higher
in social dominance (see Table 2). Participants’ conservatism was not a significant predictor of
ratings of both subordinate and authority figure character, ps = .684, .264, but was a significant
predictor of credibility ratings of both the subordinate’s perspective, F(1, 87) = 5.49, p = .021,
and the authority’s perspective, F(1, 85) = 14.13, p < .001. However, the significance of
conservatism as a main effect diminished when social dominance was added to the model for
subordinate’s perspective, p = .329, and the significance of social dominance as a main effect
diminished when conservatism was added to the model for authority figure’s perspective, p
= .337.
Our results suggest that perspective matters. People accept the perspective they get, find
it credible, and use it to make positive inferences about the person whose perspective they take
and negative ones about the other character. Even though social dominance matters as well, with
people higher in social dominance being more likely to rate the subordinate unfavorably and the
authority figure favorably, the crossover effect of perspective condition on character ratings
remained for both people low and high in social dominance. Importantly, people high in social
dominance still took on the subordinate’s perspective when provided and used it to evaluate the
subordinate character more positively than the authority figure, suggesting against possible null
or backfire effects of making the subordinate’s perspective accessible to people high in social
12
dominance. In Study 2, we seek to replicate these effects to determine stability and to address the
question of whether hearing an eyewitness account accentuates these effects even if the
eyewitness provides non-probative information (confirming that something happened but not
detailing what).
Study 2: Inclusion of an Eyewitness Account
Method
Participants. Participants were undergraduate students at the University of Southern
California who received course credit in exchange for their participation in the study (N = 222,
64.0% were Female, the two most common racial-ethnic groups were East Asian (35.0%) and
White (27.3%), Table S1 details the full demographic description). We conducted Study 2 in the
Spring semester and collected data from the start of the semester until the end of the semester as
our stop rule.
Procedure. Study 2 used the same four vignettes as Study 1 with an inclusion of two
eyewitness vignettes providing non-probative information, one for each setting (see Table 1 and
Appendix). Participants read two vignettes (subordinate’s perspectives: student and motorist or
authority figure’s perspectives: teacher and police officer) in a randomized order. We randomly
assigned participants to read two vignettes from the subordinates’ or the authority figures’
perspectives and to also read eyewitness accounts or not in a 2 (subordinate, authority
perspective) x 2 (school setting first or traffic setting first) x 2 (read eyewitness, not read
eyewitness) mixed design with setting as the within-subjects factor.
Results and Discussion
Perspective matters. As in Study 1, we conducted separate linear regressions for
subordinate and authority figure ratings with perspective condition as the predictor (see Table 5
13
for more details). Replicating the findings from Study 1, we find with perspective condition
significantly predicting subordinate character ratings, F(1, 213) = 271.1, p < .001, with the
model explaining 55.8% of the variance and authority figure character ratings, F(1, 213) = 229.4,
p < .001, with the model explaining 51.6% of the variance. Adding setting (school or traffic stop)
to the models did not yield a significant interaction effect in the model for subordinate ratings, p
= .23, but yielded a significant interaction for the authority figure ratings, p = .011.
As shown in Table 5 and depict graphically in Figure 1, people who were randomly
assigned to read the subordinate’s perspective rated the subordinate significantly more positively
and the authority figure significantly less positively than people randomly assigned to read the
authority figure’s perspective. People randomly assigned to the subordinate’s perspective rated
subordinate target character significantly above a 4, the neutral midpoint of the scale (M = 5.02,
SD = 0.73), t(94) = 13.69, p < .001, d = 1.40, and rated the authority target character significantly
below the neutral midpoint of the scale (M = 2.51, SD = 0.91), t(94) = -16.01, p < .001, d = 1.64.
We found the same pattern, in reverse, for people randomly assigned to read the authority
figure’s perspective. They rated the subordinate figure negatively, significantly below the scale’s
neutral midpoint (M = 3.04, SD = 1.05), t(122) = -10.57, p < .001, d = 0.95, while authority
figure positively, significantly above the scale’s neutral midpoint (M = 4.41, SD = 0.92), t(122) =
2.46, p < .001, d = 0.45.
For credibility rating, we used the average across the school and traffic stop setting for
each participant as there was no significant difference between the two setting, t(408.42) = -0.59,
p = .555. Unlike Study 1, condition was a significant predictor of credibility rating, F(1, 213) =
7.07, p = .008 (see Table 5), with scores for the subordinate (M = 4.43, SD = 1.34) conditions
14
being significantly higher than the scores in the authority figure (M = 3.93, SD = 1.36), t(203.17)
= 2.66, p = .008.
Perspective matters even among people high in social dominance. We added social
dominance scores to our regression equations predicting the effect of condition on rating of the
subordinate and authority figures, and the credibility of the perspective provided (see Table 5 for
details). In each regression, we included condition and centered social dominance score main
effects at step 1 and their interaction at step 2. When social dominance was added to the
regression models predicting ratings of the subordinate character and the authority figure
character, the main effect of condition remained significant, and we found a main effect of social
dominance.
As we detail in Table 5, when social dominance was added to the regression predicting
ratings of the subordinate character, the main effect of condition remained significant, and we
found a main effect of social dominance; at step 2, we also found a social dominance x condition
interaction, which significantly increased variation explained by 1.3%, F(3, 211) = 95.86, p
< .001. Similarly with regard to the regression predicting ratings of the authority figure, the main
effect of condition remained significant and we found a main of effect social dominance; at step
2, we also found a social dominance x condition interaction, which significantly increased
variation explained by 3.4%, F(3, 211) = 88.34, p < .001.
Again, to unpack the significant interaction for character ratings, we plotted in Figure 2
the ratings of people high in social dominance (scores of M + 1 SD) and people low in social
dominance (scores of M - 1 SD) in each perspective condition. Replicating Study 1, we see the
same pattern of rating the character of the perspective given positively and rating the character of
the perspective not given negatively for both people high and low in social dominance. We also
15
see ratings cross over the midpoint of ‘4’ with people high and low in social dominance rating
the target character of the perspective given above the midpoint and the other character below
the midpoint.
As for credibility, social dominance was a significant predictor of credibility ratings for
both subordinate’s, F(1, 93) = 2.89, p = .019, and authority figure’s perspective, F(1, 118) =
12.32, p < .001. Social dominance increased the belief that the account they were given was an
accurate portrayal only when they were assigned to read from an authority figure’s perspective
and the opposite effect of decreasing the belief was true when they were assigned to read from a
subordinate’s perspective.
Eyewitness account matters for finding the subordinate credible. Contrary to our
prediction, eyewitness accounts did not increase the positivity of the character ratings of
subordinate, p = .911, and authority, p = .604, figures and did not moderate the effect of
condition on these ratings, ps = .980, .804. However, supporting our prediction, as we show in
Table 5 and depict graphically in Figure 3, eyewitness accounts did increase people’s belief that
the report they received was credible when they were randomly assigned to hear the subordinate
figure’s account. Participants who were randomly assigned to read the non-probative eyewitness
account found the subordinate’s perspective to be more credible than those who did not read the
eyewitness account. We found no effect on the credibility scores for people randomly assigned to
read the account of the authority figure.
Conservatism. Participants’ conservatism was again correlated with their social
dominance score (see Table 2). Participants’ conservatism was not a significant predictor of
ratings of subordinate and authority figures, ps = .609, .467, or the credibility of the
subordinate’s perspective, p = .505, but was a significant predictor of the authority figure’s
16
credibility, F(1, 116) = 6.81, p = 0.10. Conservatism and social dominance had overlapping
effects, the main effect of conservatism diminished, p = .249, when social dominance was added
to the model.
Our main results replicate Study 1 – perspective matters. People make positive inferences
about the perspective made accessible and negative inferences about the person whose
perspective is not heard. Although social dominance influences the belief that the account they
were given was an accurate portrayal, people both high and low in social dominance evaluated
the character of the perspective made accessible positively (above neutral point) and evaluated
the other character negatively (below neutral point). The effect of a non-informative eyewitness
(confirming that something happened but not detailing what) is that it makes the subordinate’s
account more credible when that is the one people hear.
In Study 3, we aim to replicate the findings of Study 2 and preregister our hypotheses and
planned analyses (Study 3 pre-registration: https://aspredicted.org/NJZ_TFS). We also seek to
add exploratory variables to address the question of whether other individual differences follow
similar patterns of social dominance.
Study 3: Pre-Registered Replication of Study 2
Method
Participants. Based on Study 2, we wanted to be powered for an effect size of f
2
= .39.
Using this effect, we required a sample size of 49 in each cell, aiming 55 participants in each cell
(up to 220 participants), to detect the effect in a multiple regression with up to 3 predictors, with
α = .05, power (1-β) = .95, according to G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).
Participants were undergraduate students at the University of Southern California who received
course credit in exchange for their participation in the study (N = 221, 63.8% were Female, the
17
two most common racial-ethnic groups were East Asian (31.7%) and White (24.9%), Table S1
details the full demographic description).
Procedure. Study 3 used the same four vignettes as Study 1 and 2 (see Table 1 and
Appendix). The purpose of Study 3 was to replicate the findings of Study 2 and the procedure of
Study 3 is the same as Study 2. In addition to social dominance and conservatism, participants
used a 7-point response scale to indicate their social and economic conservatism and a 6-point
response scale to fill out Lipkus, Dalbert, and Sieglar’s (1996) 8-item belief in a just world for
self scale (sample item: “I get what I am entitled to have.”; M = 4.03, SD = 0.71, α = 0.85).
Results and Discussion
Perspective matters. Perspective condition significantly predicted subordinate character
ratings, F(1, 212) = 184.1, p < .001, with the model explaining 46.2% of the variance and
authority figure character ratings, F(1, 212) = 234.7, p < .001, with the model explaining 52.3%
of the variance. We replicated Studies 1 and 2 findings that people who randomly assigned to
read the subordinate’s perspective rated the subordinate significantly more positively and the
authority figure significantly less positively than people randomly assigned to read the authority
figure’s perspective (see Table 6 and Figure 1). As depicted graphically in Figure 1, people
randomly assigned to the subordinate’s perspective, rated subordinate target character
significantly above a 4, the neutral midpoint of the scale (M = 4.87, SD = 0.87), t(113) = 10.74, p
< .001, d = 1.01, and rated the authority target character significantly below the neutral midpoint
of the scale (M = 2.60, SD = 0.98), t(113) = -165.69, p < .001, d = 1.47. For people randomly
assigned to read the authority figure’s perspective, they rated the subordinate figure negatively,
significantly below the scale’s neutral midpoint (M = 3.16, SD = 0.98), t(99) = -8.58, p < .001, d
18
= 0.86, while authority figure positively, significantly above the scale’s neutral midpoint (M =
4.53, SD = 0.88), t(99) = 6.02, p < .001, d = 0.60.
For credibility rating, we again used the average across the school and traffic stop setting
for each participant and found that condition was a not significant predictor of credibility ratings,
p = .263.
Social dominance matters but perspective matters more. Replicating the findings of
Study 1 and 2, social dominance again moderated the effects of perspective condition on the
rating scores of the subordinate target characters, significantly increased variation explained by
2.6%, F(3, 210) = 68.58, p < .001, with and the rating scores of the authority target characters,
significantly increased variation explained by 4.9%, F(3, 210) = 95.91, p < .001.
As depicted in Figure 2, the same crossover pattern from Study 2 depicting how people
take on the perspective they are given – rating the character of the perspective taken positively
(above the midpoint) and the other character negatively (below the midpoint) – was consistent
for participants both high and participants low in social dominance.
Eyewitness effects. Replicating Study 2 results, eyewitness accounts again did not
increase the positivity of the character ratings of subordinate, p = .603, and authority, p = .871,
figures and did not moderate the effect of condition on these ratings, ps = .911, .678. Unlike
Study 2, there was no significant difference between people’s credibility ratings for those who
were randomly assigned to read the non-probative eyewitness in comparison to those who did
not read an eyewitness account for both the subordinate and authority’s account, ps = .156, .259.
We depict this graphically in Figure 3.
Exploring conservatism and belief in a just world. We found the average of participant’s
general, social, and economic conservatism scores for their pooled conservatism score.
19
Participants’ conservatism was again correlated with their social dominance score (see Table 2).
We also collected people’s belief in the just world (α = 0.85). Just world was not significantly
correlated with social dominance, p = .068, but was significantly correlated with conservatism, p
= .006.
We substituted conservatism and just world for social dominance in our models
predicting character ratings. Although conservatism was a significant predictor of both the
subordinate character ratings, F(1, 211) = 6.81, p = .002, and authority figure character ratings,
F(1, 211) = 11.48, p < .001, there was no condition x conservatism interaction for both character
ratings, ps = .944, .934. Just world was not a significant predictor for both subordinate and
authority figure character ratings, ps = .072, .181. For conservatism and just world, we did not
find the same effects as social dominance, suggesting the role of social dominance on person
evaluation is not redundant across other individual differences.
Study 3 replicates main findings of Studies 1 and 2 that a perspective made accessible
influences evaluation, making positive evaluation of the perspective given and negative
evaluation of the perspective not given. This was true for people high and low in social
dominance, again suggesting that challenging the status quo by making the subordinate’s
perspective accessible will influence people’s judgment of the subordinate and the authority
figure even if they have preexisting deference for authority figures. We did not find the same
effects of eyewitness increasing credibility of the subordinate’s perspective.
General Discussion
In three studies, we examined whether people take on the perspective they are provided
with, using it to positively evaluate the person of the perspective that was made accessible. We
find that people use the perspective they were given to make downstream judgments. They rated
20
the character of the perspective given positively (above the neutral point) and other character
negatively (below the neutral point) on general evaluation combining different traits.
We also examined whether the downstream effects of making the subordinate’s
perspective accessible matter more for some people than others by measuring social dominance
based on the previous findings that suggest people high in social dominance prefer maintaining a
preexisting hierarchy (Sidanius, 1993; Sidanius & Pratto, 1993, 1999, Pratto et al., 1994). Even
though social dominance has a main effect on preferring the authority figures, positively
evaluating them, and finding their account more credible, people high in social dominance still
took on the subordinate’s perspective and used it to make downstream judgments. Specifically,
we consistently find that when given the subordinate’s perspective, people high in social
dominance evaluated the subordinate character positively and the authority figure negatively.
People high in social dominance take on the subordinate’s perspective when made accessible
instead of resisting or ignoring that perspective.
Theoretical Implications for Social Change
By immersing themselves in the story told by the subordinate, even individuals higher in
social dominance evaluate the subordinate more positively – evaluating them as less culpable,
relating to them more, and justifying their actions. Our findings raise the possibility of positive
change that lies with the public’s sustained exposure to the subordinate’s perspective. The status
quo has been the precedence of the authority figure’s perspective, and the news media has helped
maintain that status quo. Indeed, content analyses of protest coverage have revealed a consistent
bias against the protestors seeking to challenge the system (McLeod, 2000; McLeod & Hertog,
1992). As for framing Ferguson, Riddle and colleagues (2020) found that media sources oriented
21
towards the general public tend to focus more on the conflict between the police and the
protestors and less on the messages behind the social movement.
Our present findings emphasize the consequences of upholding that status quo – of
amplifying only the authority figure’s perspective to the public. Accessible perspective matters.
Individuals use the accessible perspective to make downstream judgments of others, and when
the news media limits the subordinate to present their case fully (Ketchum, 2004) and rely on
authority figures like official sources for “objectivity” (Leopold & Bell, 2017; McCurdy, 2012),
the public is left with only the authority figure’s perspective to make meaning of instances that
fueled collective action. This increases the likelihood for the public to undermine the messages
behind social movements (Kilgo & Mourao, 2019), and thereby discourages potential
participation.
Social media platforms that quickly disseminate information can challenge the status quo
by making the subordinate’s perspective accessible first, allowing a new form of activism (e.g.,
“hashtag activism”; Bonilla & Rosa, 2015). Unfiltered videos like the 9 minutes and 29-second
video of Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck reveal to the public the subordinate’s
perspective (victim of police violence) before the authority figure’s perspective (the police).
Therefore, people are left with different information from the status quo to judge whether state-
sanctioned violence against Black members of the public or protestors are ever justified. We
suggest that continued exposure to the subordinate’s perspective can reveal to the public the
system that maintains marginality and in the case of police brutality, renders Black members of
the community as disposable.
22
Limitations and Future Directions
While our results are important, we consider two limitations that point to future research
directions: our participants and methods. Regarding our participants, they were undergraduate
students who scored relatively low on the conservatism and social dominance orientation scale.
Therefore, it would be worthwhile to examine whether sample characteristics matter and if the
positive effects of accessible perspective on the downstream judgments of a subordinate will
persist for those groups much higher in conservatism and social dominance.
Regarding our methods, despite sustained judgment with an addition of a non-probative
eyewitness account, it is not clear whether the order to which a specific perspective (subordinate
or authority) is told before another matters. In response to Floyd’s account being publicized,
much information attempting to undermine Floyd emerged (e.g., “Floyd was a criminal”). To
address whether order matters, it would be worthwhile to investigate the perspective as a within-
subjects factor and ask whether people use the first perspective given to make downstream
judgments or update their judgments based on the latter perspective.
In conclusion, our present studies show that accessible perspective matters in shaping
downstream judgments of the subordinate and the authority figure. People take the subordinate’s
perspective when made accessible and use it to make positive inferences about the subordinate.
The same occurs when the authority figure’s perspective is made accessible. This pattern persists
even for individuals who favor the status quo and people in authority positions. Therefore, by
continuing to put forth the subordinate’s perspective, the Black Lives Matter movement, and
other social movements can influence and sustain public opinion to evaluate the subordinate
more positively, attributing to the collective efforts to dismantle societal inequalities.
23
References
Austin, D. E., & Jackson, M. (2019). Benevolent and hostile sexism differentially predicted by
facets of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Personality and
Individual Differences, 139, 34-38.
Baker, T. L. (2019). Reframing the connections between deficit thinking, microaggressions, and
teacher perceptions of defiance. The Journal of Negro Education, 88(2), 103-113.
Batson, C. D. (2014). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Psychology
Press.
Bonilla, Y., & Rosa, J. (2015). # Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial
politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist, 42(1), 4-17.
Chaney, C., & Robertson, R. V. (2013). Racism and police brutality in America. Journal of
African American Studies, 17(4), 480-505.
Dancy, T. E. (2014). The adultification of Black boys: What educational settings can learn from
Trayvon Martin. In Trayvon Martin, Race, and American Justice (pp. 49-55). Brill Sense.
Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the
cognitive representation of persons: a merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70(4), 713.
DeAngelis, R. T. (2021). Systemic Racism in Police Killings: New Evidence From the Mapping
Police Violence Database, 2013–2021. Race and Justice, 1-10.
De Choudhury, M., Jhaver, S., Sugar, B., & Weber, I. (2016, March). Social media participation
in an activist movement for racial equality. In Tenth International AAAI Conference on
Web and Social Media.
24
Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Koenig, A. M. (2004). Gender
gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: a social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 87(6), 796.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
research methods, 39(2), 175-191.
Ferguson, A. A. (2020). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of black masculinity. University
of Michigan Press.
Fischer, R., Hanke, K., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Cultural and institutional determinants of social
dominance orientation: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of 27 societies. Political
Psychology, 33(4), 437-467.
Francis, M. M. (2022). Can Black Lives Matter within US Democracy?. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 699(1), 186-199.
Freelon, D., McIlwain, C. D., & Clark, M. (2016). Beyond the hashtags: #Ferguson,
#Blacklivesmatter, and the online struggle for offline justice. Center for Media & Social
Impact, American University, Forthcoming.
French, J. R., Raven, B., & Cartwright, D. (1959). The bases of social power. Classics of
Organization Theory, 7, 311-320.
Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M. E., & Harris, A. D. (2012). Changes in teacher–student
relationships. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 690-704.
25
Goff, P. A., Jackson, M. C., Di Leone, B. A. L., Culotta, C. M., & DiTomasso, N. A. (2014). The
essence of innocence: consequences of dehumanizing Black children. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 526.
Hiel, A. V., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Explaining conservative beliefs and political preferences: A
comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32(5), 965-976.
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J.
(2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable
predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 38(5), 583-606.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and
inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265.
Ketchum, C. (2004). If a radical screams in the forest, will she be heard? The hegemony of
instrumental rationality in news. Journalism, 5(1), 31-49.
Kilgo, D. K., Mourao, R. R., & Sylvie, G. (2019). Martin to Brown: How time and platform
impact coverage of the Black Lives Matter movement. Journalism Practice, 13(4), 413-
430.
Krieger, N., Chen, J. T., Waterman, P. D., Kiang, M. V., & Feldman, J. (2015). Police killings
and police deaths are public health data and can be counted. PLoS medicine, 12(12),
e1001915.
Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy: effects of
perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(1), 42-
58.
26
Lee, I. C., Pratto, F., & Johnson, B. T. (2011). Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of
group-based hierarchy: an examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural
factors. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 1029.
Levin, S., Federico, C. M., Sidanius, J., & Rabinowitz, J. L. (2002). Social dominance
orientation and intergroup bias: The legitimation of favoritism for high-status
groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 144-157.
Leopold, J., & Bell, M. P. (2017). News media and the racialization of protest: An analysis of
Black Lives Matter articles. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal.
36(8), 720-735.
Lipkusa, I. M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief in
a just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological well-
being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(7), 666-677.
McCurdy, P. (2012). Social movements, protest and mainstream media. Sociology
Compass, 6(3), 244-255.
McKinney de Royston, M., Madkins, T. C., Givens, J. R., & Nasir, N. I. S. (2021). “I’ma
Teacher, I’m Gonna Always Protect You”: Understanding Black Educators’ Protection of
Black Children. American Educational Research Journal, 58(1), 68-106.
McLeod, D. M., & Detenber, B. H. (1999). Framing effects of television news coverage of social
protest. Journal of Communication, 49(3), 3-23.
McLeod, D. M. (2000). The protest paradigm and news coverage of the “Right to Party”
movement. In D. Schultz (Ed.), It’s show time!: Media, politics, and popular culture, (pp.
29-50). New York: Peter Lang.
27
McLeod, D. M., & Hertog, J. K. (1992). The manufacture of public opinion by reporters:
Informal cues for public perceptions of protest groups. Discourse & Society, 3(3), 259-
275.
Okonofua, J. A., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2015). Two strikes: Race and the disciplining of young
students. Psychological Science, 26(5), 617-624.
Osborne, D., Milojev, P., & Sibley, C. G. (2017). Authoritarianism and national identity:
Examining the longitudinal effects of SDO and RWA on nationalism and
patriotism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(8), 1086-1099.
Peffley, M., & Hurwitz, J. (2007). Persuasion and resistance: Race and the death penalty in
America. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 996-1012.
Peralta, E., & Chappell, B. (2014, November 24). Ferguson Jury: No Charges For Officer In
Michael Brown's Death. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2014/11/24/366370100/grand-jury-reaches-decision-in-michael-brown-case
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.
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(1), 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.
28
Riddle, T. A., Turetsky, K. M., Bottesini, J. G., & Wayne Leach, C. (2020). “What’s going on”
in Ferguson? Online news frames of protest at the police killing of Michael
Brown. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(6), 882-901.
Schwarz, N. (2007). Cognitive aspects of survey methodology. Applied Cognitive Psychology:
The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition, 21(2), 277-287.
Sidanius, J., Feshbach, S., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (1997). The interface between ethnic and
national attachment: Ethnic pluralism or ethnic dominance? The Public Opinion
Quarterly, 61(1), 102-133.
Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Liu, J., & Pratto, F. (2000). Social dominance orientation, anti-
egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross-cultural
replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(1), 41-67.
Skiba, R. J., Arredondo, M. I., & Williams, N. T. (2014). More than a metaphor: The
contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 47(4), 546-564.
Smiley, C., & Fakunle, D. (2016). From “brute” to “thug:” The demonization and criminalization
of unarmed Black male victims in America. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment, 26(3-4), 350-366.
Spencer, M. B., Fegley, S., Harpalani, V., & Seaton, G. (2004). Understanding hypermasculinity
in context: A theory-driven analysis of urban adolescent males' coping
responses. Research in Human Development, 1(4), 229-257.
Terrill, W., & Reisig, M. D. (2003). Neighborhood context and police use of force. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(3), 291-321.
29
Warren, C. A. (2013). The Utility of Empathy for White Female Teachers' Culturally
Responsive Interactions with Black Male Students. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Teaching and Learning, 3(3), 175-200.
Weitzer, R. (2015). American policing under fire: Misconduct and reform. Society, 52(5), 475-
480.
Whitley Jr, B. E., & Lee, S. E. (2000). The relationship of authoritarianism and related constructs
to attitudes toward homosexuality 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 144-
170.
Yeager, D. S., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Hooper, S. Y., & Cohen, G. L. (2017). Loss of institutional
trust among racial and ethnic minority adolescents: A consequence of procedural
injustice and a cause of life-span outcomes. Child Development, 88(2), 658-676.
30
Table 1.
Vignette Summaries
Setting and
Perspective
Summary
School
Student “…I did not even notice that the teacher had come into the classroom. I did
not mean any disrespect by talking. The teacher only went after me, not my
friend. I stood up and walked over to the teacher. I just wanted to say that the
teacher was overreacting. I was just talking.”
Teacher “…I thought that would stop the problem, get the student to think, and keep
the student from distracting other students. Instead of doing any of that, the
student glared at me, then abruptly stood up and strode right at me, clenching
both fists as if ready to hit me any moment.”
Eyewitness
(S2 & S3)
“I overheard some words, could not really hear what they were saying, but
things looked tense from the body language. It made me nervous so I
decided I should mind my own business. I had faith that the teacher and
student would work things out, so I continued my way to the gymnasium.”
Traffic Stop
Motorist “…I firmly told the officer that I want to know the reason. Suddenly, the
officer yelled at me to get out of the car and keep my hands where they can
be seen. I started to panic. I said no because I feared what the officer would
do to me once I got out of my car. The officer then opened my door and
grabbed me and my bag out of my car.”
Officer “…I knew at this moment that the driver was trouble, but of what kind, I
could not be sure. I told the driver to step out of the vehicle so that I could
investigate further. The driver again denied my request. I knew words would
not work anymore so, I grabbed the driver and the driver’s bag out of the
car.”
Eyewitness
(S2 & S3)
“I overheard some words, could not really hear what they were saying, but
things looked tense from the body language. It made me nervous so I
decided I should mind my own business. I had faith that the officer knew
what the officer was doing, so I headed back home with my dog.”
Note. The full vignettes are in our Appendix.
31
Table 2.
Social Dominance Orientation, Descriptive Statistics, Effects of Condition, Correlations with
Conservatism
Study M (SD) α Effect of Condition
Correlation with
Conservatism
F p r p
1
2.09
***
(0.91)
0.81 0.01 .923 .49 .000
2
2.25
***
(1.00)
0.81 1.15 .285 .48 .000
3
2.25
***
(1.00)
0.83 3.49 .062 .43 .000
Note. Condition: 0 = subordinate figure; 1 = authority figure; Conservatism: 1 = very liberal; 7 =
very conservative.
32
Table 3.
Study 1 Moderator Analysis with Condition and SDO
Model IV DV B SE B
Beta (β)
[95% CI]
t p
1
(Intercept)
General
Rating of the
Subordinate
4.77 0.11 42.97 .000
Condition -1.73 0.16 -0.64
[-0.95, -0.32]
-10.91 .000
2
(Intercept) 4.78 0.10 45.56 .000
Condition -1.74 0.15 -0.64
[-0.93, -0.34]
-11.66 .000
SDO -0.59 0.13 -0.39
[-0.64, -0.15]
-4.71 .000
Condition *
SDO
0.40 0.17 0.20
[-0.13, 0.53]
2.38 .018
1
(Intercept)
General
Rating of the
Authority
Figure
2.80 0.13
22.27 .000
Condition 1.50 0.18 0.53
[0.18, 0.89]
8.34 .000
2
(Intercept) 2.78 0.11 24.79 .000
Condition 1.52 0.16 0.54
[0.22, 0.85]
9.50 .000
SDO 0.89 0.13 0.57
[0.31, 0.84]
6.63 .000
Condition *
SDO
0.63 0.18 -0.31
[-0.66, 0.04]
-3.54 .000
1
(Intercept)
Credibility
Rating
4.26 0.14 30.66 .000
Condition -0.37 0.18 -0.14
[-0.53, 0.25]
-1.89 .060
SDO -0.58 -0.17 -0.58
[-0.71, -0.05]
-3.49 .001
Condition *
SDO
0.95 0.22 -0.58
[-0.71, -0.05]
4.32 .000
1
(Intercept)
Credibility
Rating of the
Subordinate
4.26 0.14 31.24 .000
SDO -0.58 0.16 0.95
[0.04, 0.91]
-3.56 .001
1
(Intercept)
Credibility
Rating of the
Authority
Figure
3.89 0.14 27.15 .000
SDO 0.37 0.15 0.26
[-0.03, 0.56]
2.52 .014
33
Note. For condition (i.e., perspective-given), 0 indicates subordinate character’s perspective and
1 indicates authority character’s perspective. SDO is mean-centered.
Table 4.
34
Study 1 Sample Descriptive Statistics and t-Test Comparison
Rating of Construct Perspective Condition
Subordinate Authority
α M SD M SD t-test d
Subordinate
Empathy .87 4.31 1.32 2.15 1.34 10.79
***
1.62
Relatability .78 4.36 1.66 2.86 1.59 6.13
***
0.92
Culpability .83 4.71 1.29 3.38 1.30 6.85
***
1.03
Punishment .77 5.37 1.53 3.58 1.54 7.77
***
1.17
Justification .89 5.10 1.36 3.24 1.39 9.00
***
1.35
Average .87 4.68 0.99 2.80 1.25 10.91
***
1.64
Credibility - 4.26 1.66 - - - -
Authority
Figure
Empathy .87 2.42 1.47 3.95 1.78 -6.22
***
0.94
Relatability .78 2.66 1.56 3.87 1.71 -4.95
***
0.74
Culpability .83 3.02 1.43 4.14 1.17 -5.68
***
0.85
Punishment .77 3.30 1.43 5.17 1.21 -9.42
***
1.41
Justification .89 2.60 1.42 4.35 1.55 -7.22
***
1.17
Average .90 3.04 1.25 4.41 0.92 -8.36
***
1.25
Credibility - - - 3.89 1.38 - -
Note.
***
indicates p < .001; For perspective condition, 0 indicates subordinate character’s
perspective and 1 indicates authority character’s perspective; d indicates Cohen’s d. Average
indicates the average score across empathy, relatability, culpability, punishment, and
justification.
35
Table 5.
Study 2 Moderator Analysis with Condition, SDO, and Eyewitness
Model IV DV B SE B
Beta (β)
[95% CI]
t p
1
(Intercept)
General
Rating of the
Subordinate
5.02 0.09 56.32 .000
Condition -1.94 0.12 -0.74
[-0.97, -0.51]
-16.34 .000
2
(Intercept) 5.01 0.09 56.78 .000
Condition -1.94 0.12 -0.74
[-0.97, -0.51]
-16.43 .000
SDO -0.26 0.10 -0.20
[-0.39, -0.01]
-2.63 .009
Condition *
SDO
0.33 0.12 0.20
[-0.04, 0.44]
2.66 .005
1
(Intercept)
General
Rating of the
Authority
Figure
2.51 0.09 26.68 .000
Condition 1.90 0.13 0.72
[0.47, 0.97]
15.21 .000
2
(Intercept) 2.53 0.09 22.89 .000
Condition 1.88 0.12 0.71
[0.47, 0.95]
15.52 .000
SDO 0.40 0.10 0.30
[0.10, 0.50]
3.88 .000
Condition *
SDO
-0.25 0.13 -0.15
[-0.40, 0.10]
-1.98 .044
1
(Intercept)
Credibility
Rating of the
Subordinate
4.41 0.14 32.36 .000
SDO -0.26 0.15 -0.17
[-0.48, 0.13]
2.89 .093
2
(Intercept) 3.93 0.19 26.64 .000
SDO -0.14 0.20 -0.09
[-0.49, 0.31]
-0.87 .501
Eyewitness 0.89 0.26 0.33
[-0.18, 0.85]
4.49 .001
SDO *
Eyewitness
-0.20 0.29 -0.09
[-0.67, 0.48]
-0.93 .478
1
(Intercept)
Credibility
Rating of the
Authority
Figure
3.91 0.12 32.97 .000
SDO 0.39 0.11 0.31
[0.09, 0.53]
3.51 .001
2
(Intercept) 3.85 0.16 29.21 .000
SDO 0.50 0.14 0.39
[0.12, 0.67]
4.11 .001
Eyewitness 0.09 0.24 0.03
[-0.44, 0.51]
0.81 .699
SDO *
Eyewitness
-0.28 0.24 -0.13
[-0.60, 0.34]
-1.08 .226
36
Note. For condition (i.e., perspective-given), 0 indicates subordinate character’s perspective and
1 indicates authority character’s perspective. For eyewitness, 0 indicates eyewitness not included
and 1 indicates eyewitness included. SDO is mean-centered.
Table 6.
37
Study 3 Moderator Analysis with Condition and SDO
Model IV DV B SE B
Beta (β)
[95% CI]
t p
1
(Intercept)
General
Rating of the
Subordinate
4.87 0.09 56.55 .000
Condition -1.71 0.13 -0.68
[-0.93, -0.43]
-13.57 .000
2
(Intercept) 4.90 0.09 56.78 .000
Condition -1.73 0.12 -0.69
[-0.93, -0.45]
-14.04 .000
SDO -0.32 0.09 -0.24
[-0.42, -0.06]
-3.54 .000
Condition *
SDO
0.33 0.13 0.18
[-0.08, 0.43]
2.56 .011
1
(Intercept)
General
Rating of the
Authority
Figure
2.60 0.09 30.32 .000
Condition 1.92 0.13 0.72
[0.48, 0.97]
15.31 .000
2
(Intercept) 2.57 0.08 31.45 .000
Condition 1.96 0.12 0.74
[0.50, 0.97]
16.43 .000
SDO 0.45 0.09 0.32
[0.15, 0.50]
5.11 .000
Condition *
SDO
-0.42 0.13 -0.21
[-0.46, 0.04]
-1.98 .000
Note. For condition (i.e., perspective-given), 0 indicates subordinate character’s perspective and
1 indicates authority character’s perspective. For eyewitness, 0 indicates eyewitness not included
and 1 indicates eyewitness included. SDO is mean-centered.
38
Figure 1.
Effect of Perspective Condition on Target Character Rating
Note. Dark bars represent character ratings for participants randomly assigned to read the
subordinate’s perspective. Light bars represent character ratings for participants randomly
assigned to read the authority figure’s perspective. Whiskers represent standard errors. The
dashed line represents the scale midpoint of 4.
39
Figure 2.
Effect of Perspective Condition on Target Character Rating for People High and Low in Social
Dominance
Note. Dark bars represent character ratings for participants randomly assigned to read the
subordinate’s perspective. Light bars represent character ratings for participants randomly
assigned to read the authority figure’s perspective. Top row represents participants high in social
dominance (scores of M + 1 SD). Bottom row represents participants low in social dominance
(scores of M - 1 SD). Whiskers represent standard errors. The dashed line represents the scale
midpoint of 4.
40
Figure 3.
Effect of Perspective Condition and Eyewitness on Credibility Rating
Note. Dark bars represent credibility ratings for participants randomly assigned to hear an
eyewitness account in addition to an initially given perspective. Light bars represent credibility
ratings for participants randomly assigned to not hear an eyewitness account in addition to an
initially given perspective. Whiskers represent standard errors. The dashed line represents the
scale midpoint of 4.
41
Appendix
School Vignettes
(1) Student Perspective: Today was my first day back to school after I got suspended for
punching back. The guy who punched me first got away with it. Only I got suspended. I headed
to my history class and sat in my assigned seat. I could tell my friend was happy to see me back
in class. My friend asked me if I was going to our school’s football game this Friday night. I
excitedly replied that I was looking forward to the game. That got us talking about all the things
we’d do this weekend. All of a sudden, the history teacher screamed my name. Right in front of
everyone, the teacher said, “You again! You’re just looking for trouble! You’ll never make
anything of yourself with that attitude!” I couldn’t believe it. I just looked at the teacher. The
teacher kept right at it. The teacher demanded that I apologize right then and there out loud. I
didn’t say anything and then the teacher said, “You want to act like a child? Go stand in the
corner for the rest of the class.” I could tell everyone was staring at me. I did not even notice that
the teacher had come into the classroom. I did not mean any disrespect by talking. The teacher
only went after me, not my friend. I stood up and walked over to the teacher. I just wanted to say
that the teacher was overreacting. I was just talking. Next thing I know, the school security
officer was there, pulling me out of the room and marching me to the principal’s office. When I
got there, I tried to explain what really happened. Instead, the principal just cut me off and said I
was suspended again from the school because the teacher said I was threatening in class and the
school has a zero-tolerance policy for violence. What about violence against me?
(2) Teacher Perspective: Today is the first day back to school for a student in my class
who was suspended for fighting in the cafeteria. I noticed that this student tends to use
unnecessary violence to solve problems. At that age, students should know better. I walked into
the class and told everyone to sit down so we could start. Only my recently suspended
student ignored me and continued a loud conversation. I tried to keep things on track by loudly
clearing my throat to give the student a last warning. The student continued to ignore me. I called
out the student by name. Still nothing. That was an unacceptable and blatant display of
disrespect. I gave the student my sincere advice - to succeed in life, the student should start
respecting other people and stop looking for trouble. I then asked the student to apologize to
everyone for disrupting class and to move to a corner for the remainder of the class. I thought
that would stop the problem, get the student to think, and keep the student from distracting other
students. Instead of doing any of that, the student glared at me, then abruptly stood up and strode
right at me, clenching both fists as if ready to hit me any moment. Given the student’s history of
punching in the cafeteria, I was immediately concerned about my safety. I responded
appropriately, pressing the button to call our school security officer to take the student to the
principal’s office. I let the principal know that the student acted out, using a violent manner in
class. It was obvious that it would not be safe for other teachers and students if this particular
student continued coming into school. I suggested to the principal that the student should be
removed from the school. The student was instead suspended for a week.
(3) Eyewitness (Study 2 and 3): It was a Monday morning and students were rushing
through the hallway to their first period class. After the hallway cleared, I cleaned up juice that
some kid spilled so that no one slips at the next passing period. I was on my way to the
gymnasium to mop the floors when I heard loud voices in a classroom. Out of curiosity, I peeked
42
through the door. There was a student standing up and arguing with the teacher. I overheard
some words, could not really hear what they were saying, but things looked tense from the body
language. It made me nervous so I decided I should mind my own business. I had faith that the
teacher and student would work things out, so I continued my way to the gymnasium.
Traffic-Stop Vignettes
(1) Motorist Perspective: I was driving home from work around dinner time. I like to try
new routes, so instead of heading back on the same route, I took a different turn to check out
other areas of town. I didn’t have much of a plan and figured that if I really get turned around, I
can always turn on my navigator. I got to a neighborhood with some nice new construction and
nicely done gardens, so I slowed down to enjoy the sight. The street was wide enough that no
one was stuck driving behind me. A few minutes later, I saw flashing lights in my rearview
mirror. I hadn’t been breaking any traffic rules but I slowed down and pulled over. A uniformed
police officer stepped out of the police car and slowly walked over to me. I took a deep breath to
calm myself, lowered the window, and respectfully greeted the officer. Without giving a reason
for stopping me, the officer asked for my license and registration. I politely asked the officer why
I was pulled over. The officer ignored my question and asked for my license and registration
again. This was worrisome. I firmly told the officer that I want to know the reason. Suddenly, the
officer yelled at me to get out of the car and keep my hands where they can be seen. I started to
panic. I said no because I feared what the officer would do to me once I got out of my car. The
officer then opened my door and grabbed me and my bag out of my car. I repeatedly begged the
officer to stop but, the officer forcefully grabbed my arms and told me to calm down. I then
heard chatter on the officer’s radio that I could not comprehend. The officer ordered me to stay
and returned to the police car. The officer came back after a few minutes and said that I was
pulled over because there have been reports of attempted burglary in the neighborhood and, my
slow driving was suspicious. Supposedly, the officer ran both my license and my plates, and
nothing came up. The officer said I was lucky this time and told me to go home and stop acting
suspiciously.
(2) Police Officer Perspective: I was driving through a neighborhood with new
construction near the end of my shift. I was assigned to patrol the area due to several reports of
an attempted burglary on the work sites. I noticed an old-modeled car driving very slowly.
Usually, slow driving indicates driving under the influence or looking for trouble. The slow car
made me take another glance at the driver – under the influence? Casing for a crime? I needed a
closer look. I drove behind the car and from my view, the driver looked similar to the suspect in
the neighborhood reports for the burglar. The driver seemed to be ignoring me so, I turned the
lights on to stop the suspected car. My years of experience taught me to approach this situation
with caution. Lots of people carry weapons and can be trigger-happy. I got out of the car and
gave myself some time, making a slow approach so I could carefully look over the car and
driver. I followed the procedure and asked for the driver’s license and registration. The driver
shot me a look and refused my request. I maintained my professionalism and continued asking
for the license and registration. The driver avoided eye contact while repeatedly saying no as if
hiding something. I knew at this moment that the driver was trouble, but of what kind, I could
not be sure. I told the driver to step out of the vehicle so that I could investigate further. The
driver again denied my request. I knew words would not work anymore so, I grabbed the driver
and the driver’s bag out of the car. The driver was yelling at me and violently pushing my arms
away. I told the driver to calm down to defuse the situation. I then heard on the radio that the
43
suspect has been caught. I told the driver to stay put and headed back to my patrol car to run the
license and plates just in case. The driver’s records came up clean. I was a bit surprised
considering how aggressive and violent the driver was. I returned the documents, smiled at the
driver, and said, "Have a good day, you are lucky this time. Head home and stay out of trouble."
(3) Eyewitness (Study 2 and 3): After dinner, I was walking my dog around the
neighborhood. Since the neighborhood is gated, there are not many cars or people passing by.
That is probably why I noticed two people across the street – an officer and someone I did not
recognize and a car I did not recognize – someone not from the neighborhood. Out of curiosity, I
moved closer while maintaining my distance. I overheard some words, could not really hear what
they were saying, but things looked tense from the body language. It made me nervous so I
decided I should mind my own business. I had faith that the officer knew what the officer was
doing, so I headed back home with my dog.
44
Supplemental Materials
Table S1.
Studies 1-3 Detailed Demographics
Study 1
(N = 177)
Study 2
(N = 222)
Study 3
(N = 221)
n % n % n %
Gender
Female 120 68.6 142 64.0 141 63.8
Male 54 30.9 71 32.0 74 33.5
Non-Binary 1 0.5 5 2.2 1 0.5
Transgender 0 0 0 0 1 0.5
Choose not to answer 0 0 4 1.8 1 0.5
Race-Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White 64 36.6 60 27.3 55 24.9
Black, Afro-Caribbean,
or African American
6 3.4 4 1.8 7 3.2
Latino or Hispanic 21 12.0 24 10.9 33 14.9
East Asian 41 23.4 77 35.0 70 31.7
South Asian 12 7.4 16 7.2 16 7.2
Middle Eastern or Arab 6 3.4 13 5.9 9 4.1
Native American or
Alaskan Native
0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.0
Mixed 19 10.9 14 6.3 23 10.4
Other 6 3.4 11 5.0 7 3.2
Conservatism
176
M = 2.95
***
SD =1 .45
220
M = 3.02
***
SD = 1.35
220
M = 2.87
***
SD = 1.27
Very Liberal 24 13.6 28 12.7 24 10.9
Liberal 63 36.6 65 29.5 83 37.6
Slightly Liberal 26 15.1 42 19.1 43 19.5
Neither Liberal nor
Conservative
35 20.3 53 24.1 44 19.9
Slightly Conservative 18 11.0 24 10.9 20 9.0
Conservative 8 4.7 8 3.6 6 2.7
Very Conservative 2 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0
Note.
***
score is significantly under the midpoint of 4, p < .001)
45
Table S2.
Study 1 Item Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Item Between-Item Correlations
M SD Empathy Relatability Culpability Punishment Justification
Empathy 3.21 1.75 1
Relatability 3.44 1.77 0.65
***
1
Culpability 3.81 1.46 0.63
***
0.51
***
1
Punishment 4.35 1.70 0.53
***
0.43
***
0.66
***
1
Justification 3.84 1.77 0.77
***
0.69
***
0.66
***
0.60
***
1
Note.
***
p < .001
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The ubiquity of smartphones and social media means people can rapidly disseminate accounts of contested interactions from the perspective of subordinate figures (student, member of the public). This challenges the monopoly that the dominant authority figures (teacher, officer) have over the initial accounts. We suspected that first accounts matter, shaping how people evaluate each agent (subordinate, authority figure) and find them credible. In three studies, one pre-registered, we randomized people to read either first-person vignettes presented from an authority figure’s perspective (teacher/officer) or a subordinate’s perspective (student/motorist). After reading, all participants rated both the dominant and the subordinate character. People took the given perspective, judging the character whose account they read more favorably and the other character unfavorably. Initial perspective mattered even for people high in social dominance. Given that the dominant perspective is typically heard first, our present findings suggest that public opinion is unlikely to shift unless the subordinate’s perspective is made accessible first.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Are jokes funnier when they’re easier to process?
PDF
Metacognitive experiences in judgments of truth and risk
PDF
Bridging possible identities and intervention journeys: two process-oriented accounts that advance theory and application of psychological science
PDF
Can I make the time or is time running out? That depends in part on how I think about difficulty
PDF
Thesis statements - a thesis podcast about how games are made.
PDF
Explaining the variation in the extent of China's hegemony, 1279-1840 — multiple sources of ideational power beyond Confucianism
PDF
A peculiar paradise: tribal place, property and the peripatetic tradition in African American literature
PDF
Mercy and metaphor: the empathy era and its discontents
Asset Metadata
Creator
Jeon, Amabel Youngbin
(author)
Core Title
#BLM or #ALM: accessible perspective shapes downstream judgment even among people high in social dominance
School
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Psychology
Degree Conferral Date
2022-08
Publication Date
07/27/2023
Defense Date
06/19/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
African-American,Attitude,authority,Black,BLM,culpability,judgment making,motorist,OAI-PMH Harvest,officer,perspective,perspective-taking,Police,Police brutality,police killing,police officer,police violence,Race,racial,social dominance,student,subordinate,teacher
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Oyserman, Daphna (
committee chair
), Hackel, Leor (
committee member
), Schwarz, Norbert (
committee member
)
Creator Email
amabel1007@gmail.com,youngbin@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111375332
Unique identifier
UC111375332
Legacy Identifier
etd-JeonAmabel-11013
Document Type
Thesis
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Jeon, Amabel Youngbin
Type
texts
Source
20220728-usctheses-batch-962
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
African-American
authority
BLM
culpability
judgment making
motorist
perspective-taking
police killing
police officer
police violence
racial
social dominance
subordinate