Perceived Authenticity as a Vicarious Justification for Prejudice

Abstract

Why is the expression of prejudice seen as authentic? Perceived authenticity refers to how much one judges another’s behavior to reflect the beliefs, attitudes, goals, and desires of that person. I investigated whether perceived authenticity can operate as a vicarious justification for prejudice—a way for prejudiced people to defend the prejudiced statements of others. In eight studies (N = 1,386), prejudice was positively related to perceived authenticity of similarly-prejudiced statements (meta-analytic r = .22); people are more likely to label prejudiced statements they agree with as authentic. A “vicarious justification” account argues that perceived authenticity is not just mere argument, however; the prejudiced statement must also be non-normative, as people do not need to justify what is socially acceptable. Three studies demonstrate that the positive relationship between prejudice and perceived authenticity is heightened when the expressed prejudice is seen as unacceptable—people call “authentic” what they agree with but feel they cannot express. These findings support the Justification-Suppression Model (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) of prejudice expression. I investigated whether social projection, affective balance, or motivated reasoning perspectives could explain the relationship between prejudice and perceived authenticity of similarly-prejudiced speech. I found no compelling evidence that they contributed to authenticity judgments. Labeling prejudiced speech as “authentic” can operate as a rearticulated expression of prejudice that serves to defend prejudice from the social norms proscribing its expression.