Safe Here, but Unsafe There? Institutional Signals of Identity Safety Also Signal Prejudice Elsewhere

Abstract

Across four studies (N = 3049, 69.7% White, 45.5% Male, 85.2% Heterosexual), participants who read about institutions with signals to identity safety (compared to signals unrelated to identity safety) showed increased expectations of prejudice in other environments. These increases in prejudice expectations mediated increased perceptions of prejudice (Study 1), motivations to combat prejudice (Study 2 and 3), and support for movements and policies that address diversity, equity, and inclusion (Study 3 and 4). Moreover, these increased prejudice expectations were not moderated by group membership. Evidence suggested that signals to identity safety increased prejudice expectations in non-signaled spaces because they are perceived as a response to problem in the broader environment, leading people to infer the existence of a problem. In addition, across studies. signals to identity safety were interpreted differently than institutional signals of other kinds of social problems—intuitional signals of environmental friendliness, for instance, did not increase perceptions of environmentally harmful behavior in other environments. Collectively, the current studies broaden the scope of prior work on identity safety signals by showing that identity safety signals transfer across location and that prejudice expectations can lead to both negative outcomes (e.g., perceptions of prejudice) and positive outcomes (such as support for movements/policies that promote diversity, equity and inclusion).