Was it race or merit?: The cognitive costs of observing the attributionally ambiguous hiring of a racial minority.

Abstract

This study investigated individual and situational factors that may make observing positive treatment of an ingroup member attributionally ambiguous and cognitively taxing for ethnic minority perceivers. 163 Latino/a participants who varied in the perception that Whites are externally motivated to behave positively toward minorities (Perceived External Motivation Scale; PEMS) observed a Latino candidate selected over 2 White candidates by a White Human Resources officer. The selected candidate was or was not the most qualified and a diversity rationale was or was not provided. Participants subsequently performed a test of cognitive interference. When a less-qualified minority candidate was selected, the presence (vs. absence) of a diversity rationale increased cognitive interference among low PEMS participants, but decreased cognitive interference among high PEMS participants. Results suggest that a diversity rationale made the selection of a less qualified minority more ambiguous for low PEMS but less ambiguous for high PEMS participants. The present study informs our understanding of when and for whom Whites' positive behavior is perceived as attributionally ambiguous. (PsycINFO Database Record