The present research examined the different processes that guide judgm
ents of single group members in private vs anticipated public contexts
. In each of three experiments, pro-Black or anti-Black participants w
ere informed in advance either that their judgments of a Black individ
ual were completely confidential (Private Context) or that they would
be discussing their judgments with the other persons in the room (Anti
cipated Public Context). Experiment 1 showed that judgments of the tar
get were more consistent with racial attitudes in the anticipated publ
ic than in the private condition. Experiment 2 replicated these findin
gs and, moreover, showed nearly identical effects regardless of whethe
r participants' attitudes were assessed by measures of modern vs ''old
-fashioned'' racism. Experiment 3 again showed consistency between gro
up attitudes and judgments of the target in anticipated public context
s, even when participants were given information about the likely ''pr
o'' or ''anti'' views of the audience and, hence, regardless of whethe
r participants believed that the audience agreed with their own attitu
des or not. Taken as a whole, results were consistent with a 'bolsteri
ng' framework first articulated in the cognitive dissonance domain (e.
g., McGuire, 1964), which has shown that people become psychologically
invested in their own positions when they anticipate debate with othe
rs, especially when their a priori commitment to their attitude is rel
atively high. The implications of the present results for theories of
modern racism and the construct validity of the modern racism scale ar
e discussed. (C) 1996 Academic Press, Inc.