10.1177/0146167203251526 ARTICLE PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Schaller et al. / DANGER, DARKNESS, AND STEREOTYPES Fear of the Dark: Interactive Effects of Beliefs About Danger and Ambient Darkness on Ethnic Stereotypes Mark Schaller Justin H. Park Annette Mueller University of British Columbia Two studies examined effects of ambient darkness and chronic beliefs about danger on activation of stereotypes about Blacks. Chronic beliefs were measured by a Belief in a Dangerous World (BDW) questionnaire. In Study 1, participants in either a dimly lit or dark room saw photos of Black men and rated the extent to which specific traits described the cultural stereotype of Blacks. In Study 2, participants in either a well-lit or dark room completed reaction-time tasks assessing implicit associations between Blacks and evaluative attributes. Separate measures assessed stereotypes connoting danger versus those that are merely deroga- tory. Results revealed BDW Darkness interactions on activa- tion of danger-relevant stereotypes: BDW positively predicted activation in dark but not in light conditions. It appears that chronic beliefs about danger can facilitate activation of func- tionally relevant stereotypes, but this effect occurs primarily under circumstances (such as darkness) that heuristically sug- gest vulnerability to harm. Conceptual implications are discussed. Keywords: darkness; danger; fear; stereotype activation; stereotypes A fearful reaction to dangerous things is one of the most fundamental of human experiences. The emo- tional experience of fear almost certainly has deep evolu- tionary roots and still serves the useful function of com- pelling individuals to vigilantly avoid those things—such as snarling bears, slashing blades, and speeding buses— that threaten their health. But that does not mean that these fearful feelings have only practical and prudent consequences. Far from it. Psychological, sociological, and anthropological studies imply that all sorts of unnec- essary antisocial acts—from bullying to gang violence to tribal warfare—are precipitated by threat and perceived vulnerability to danger (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Dodge, 1980; Robarchek, 1990). The antisocial conse- quences of threat can be very subtle; they include not just overt acts of aggression but also a variety of cognitive responses (e.g., Dodge & Somberg, 1987). In this article, we examine one particular type of antisocial cognition: derogatory ethnic stereotypes. We report two experi- ments revealing that chronic beliefs about danger inter- act with ambient darkness (an environmental context that connotes feelings of vulnerability) to influence the activation of those stereotypes. Stereotypes and Prejudice as a Consequence of Specific Threats and Dangers There is a substantial psychological literature explor- ing the ways in which a variety of fears and threats influ- ence stereotypes and prejudice. The existential fear asso- ciated with knowledge of one’s own mortality is known to have consequences on intergroup prejudice (Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997). Other research reveals that ego threat—challenge to one’s self- esteem—facilitates the activation of negative ethnic ste- reotypes and increases outgroup prejudice (Brown, Col- lins, & Schmidt, 1988; Fein & Spencer, 1997). But these lines of inquiry do not address the specific sort of threat experience under inquiry here. Of greater relevance is 637 Authors’ Note: The research reported in this article was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of British Columbia Hampton Research Fund. We appreciate the support. Thanks also to Simrat Sarahan for her help in data collection and to Saera Khan, Darrin Lehman, Michelle Luke, David Pillow, and Ed Sadalla for their helpful com- ments and suggestions. Correspondence should be addressed to Mark Schaller, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver BC, Canada V6T 1Z4; e-mail: schaller@cor- tex.psych.ubc.ca. PSPB, Vol. 29 No. 5, May 2003 637-649 DOI: 10.1177/0146167203251526 © 2003 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.