Dual pathways to bias: Evaluators' ideology and ressentiment independently predict racial discrimination in hiring contexts.

Despite organizations' professed commitment to fairness, thousands of employees file race-based discrimination claims every year. The current article examines how people deviate from impartiality when evaluating candidates in hiring decisions. Researchers have argued the ideological endorsement of elitism (i.e., scoring high in social dominance orientation) can lead to discrimination against racial minorities. We examined whether an opposing ideological commitment-egalitarianism-can also produce partiality, but in favor of minority applicants. Inspired by dual processing models and Nietzsche's philosophical theorizing, we also forwarded and tested a novel, affective predictor of racial biases in evaluation: toward the socially powerful. Across 4 studies, we found evaluators' ideologies and independently shaped evaluations of equally qualified candidates in hiring contexts. Participants who endorsed elitism showed a preference for White candidates, whereas those who endorsed egalitarianism evaluated Black candidates more favorably. Individuals who experienced stronger toward the social elite also preferred Black over White applicants. Studies 3 and 4 tested and supported a novel intervention-inducing a calculative mindset-as a method for attenuating evaluators' ideological and driven impartiality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).