Implicit bias attribution reduces prosocial emotions and donation intentions for natural disaster victims.

Concern about biased depictions of individuals, groups, and events in media has intensified across the political spectrum. At the same time, implicit attitudes have become an increasingly common explanation for discriminatory outcomes. The present study examines emotional, cognitive, and behavioral consequences of biased media depictions depending on whether they are attributed to journalists' implicit or explicit attitudes. A sample of U.S. participants (N = 350) read about biased media coverage of Muslim natural disaster victims that ostensibly reduced the public's donation behavior relative to other types of victims. The biased reporting was attributed to journalists' implicit (i.e., unconscious) or explicit (i.e., conscious) anti-Muslim attitudes and beliefs. After reading the report, participants in the implicit bias condition felt less outrage, guilt, and anger toward the journalists, held them less culpable, and revealed lower intentions and willingness to donate to similar victims of natural disasters in the future, compared with participants in the explicit bias condition. These findings point to compelling behavioral consequences of emphasizing the role that implicit, rather than more deliberate, biases play in producing discrimination, be it in media or other important societal domains.