Study: You may be more racist than you think
 

(CNN) -- Would you get upset if you witnessed an act of racism?


A new study shows that many people may unknowingly hold racist views, contrary to how they view themselves.

A new study published Thursday in the journal Science suggests many people unconsciously harbor racist attitudes, even though they see themselves as tolerant and egalitarian.

"This study, and a lot of research in social psychology, suggests that there are still really a lot of negative associations with blacks," said Kerry Kawakami, associate professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Ontario, and lead author of the study. "People are willing to tolerate racism and not stand up against it."

The authors divided 120 non-black participants into the roles of "experiencers" and "forecasters." The "experiencers" were placed in a room with a white person and a black person, who played out pre-arranged scenarios for the experiment. The scenarios began when the black role-player bumped the white role-player's knee when leaving the room.

In the first scenario, the white person did not comment afterwards. In the "moderate" case, the white person said, "Typical, I hate it when black people do that," after the black person left the room. In the "extreme" case, the white person remarked, "Clumsy n****r."

The "forecasters," meanwhile, predicted how they would feel in these situations.

The magnitude of the results surprised even the authors, Kawakami said. Experiencers reported little distress in all three scenarios, much less than the forecasters did in the moderate and severe situations.

"Even using that most extreme comment didn't lead people to be particularly upset," said co-author Elizabeth Dunn, assistant professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

Immediately afterwards, the participants were asked to choose either the black person or the white person as a partner for an anagram test. More than half of experiencers chose the white partner -- regardless of the severity of the comment that person made earlier. As for the forecasters, less than half chose the white partner when a comment was made, but most chose the white person when no comment was made.

"Some people might think that they're very egalitarian and they don't have to deal with their prejudices, and that's not related to them at all, when in actual fact they may hold these hidden biases," Kawakami said.

The study is consistent with decades of psychology research pointing to the same thing: People are really bad at predicting their own actions in socially sensitive situations.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/07...udy/index.html


I think my only problem with studies like these, especially with the global community being the way it is now, is simply what about the inclusion of other races and their interactions with each other in these types of studies.

I think we all are biased. It's when we act on it is what causes the problem. I mean, anyone can be biased without being considered a racist.

I can agree with that.

cue Avenue Q - "Everyone's a little bit racist".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9CSnlb-ymA

THIS JUST IN: Shit stinks.

I just hope the good people of Canada didn't have to fund that study with their tax dollars.
It reminds me of a study that found that men paid more attention to a picture of a naked woman than a picture of a triangle. No, really, they have the science to prove it.

Hasn't this been established over and over? Why do we need another "new" study? There's a site that has interesting bias tests that I can't recall right now, but I know people who have been surprised by the results of those tests.

I'd be interested to see what the results of this study would be if the subjects were officers of the Bellaire, TX Police Dept. or of the BART of Oakland.

...you forgot New York City...

I just took the test at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/. It's black/white preference as well as political preference for the 2008 election. I'm not even going to say what my racial preference was except to say that it was "strongly" in one direction. My political preference was "moderately" toward Obama.

Glad I wasn't the only one who thought this study was stating the obvious.

I'm a social scientist so this is "obvious" to me but this is news to the average layperson that I talk to and my average student. There will be a "wow" factor for some, some will be angered because they think this study is telling them they aren't as nice or as progressive as they thought they were, and the rest will be like "DUH."

That's what I find amusing. :)

These types of studies are to keep the dialogue going and to use updated methods to either debunk or reinforce the things that many consider to be "conventional wisdom." Conventional wisdom is rarely so and we need qual and quant studies to tell us whether we're completely wrong about our assumptions.

I guess my reaction to the study, as well as my reactions to other similar studies, show why it's a good thing I pursued the law, and not the social sciences, as a career path. :)

ETA: Although I would be missing something if I didn't acknowledge that this type of study can be used in a number of legal avenues, from jury selection to scholarly writing on the law.

You beat me to it! :D

interesting test....

I apparently scored as one who moderately like AfAm more than EurAms and apparently the percentage of those that score in that direction is around 4%.....hmmmm

heh!

If studies use very new techniques and measures, it would be more interesting if they were to provide an explanation of what they did that was different. However, whenever I read these things, they all do much of the same thing...and worse, no one seems to be using this information to address the subtleties of the -isms. What are they really doing to get this information to the lay people in a way that doesn't turn them off?

totally off topic, but that made me think of the Pace picante sauce commercials

/tangent

thank you!!! LOL

NEW YORK CITY????


....get a rope!

I think you abuse commas like I do. :)

Yes, such positivism makes the world go 'round whether people like it or not. :)

I do (along with ellipses) - I also have a tendency to speak in parallel sentence structure, which is a whole other subject...

I doubt that you are reading these studies from the abstract to the discussion. I read enough articles so I'm not taking the time to read the full study that CNN is citing. Have you?

This is a vague critique, which should be ironic to you. :)

Not all researchers consider it their responsibility to do this beyond the research and teaching that they do.

However, CNN is arguably a mainstream source that reported this info to anyone who cares to access it. The problem is that most people will take CNN's story and stop there. We have the internet that has a wealth of info--some of it false--that people can access and hopefully inspire them to learn more.

There are also "public" specialties of fields. There are people who focus on going into the community and holding seminars, putting out books to be read by the masses, and doing articles in mainstream magazines. This requires different language use for certain research goals and different references. Some consider this "dumbing down" and it can be rather condescending and insulting, as well as nerve wrecking for the researcher at times.

When I can access the full studies including all the statistical data, I like to read them. Sometimes, different sites will actually give you the background and research of the study which is very convenient for those of us who care to read on.

But, I'm talking about making these things accessible and understandable to the general public. I find that results of studies are presented, but there's not a lot of information about how they came to the conclusions they did. I also find that the people who will accept the study anyway are the ones who are interested in reading; whereas people who either don't understand or don't agree, probably won't read the articles anyway.

If the point is to put more information out into the world, they're certainly doing their job. But, if they're looking to actually do something with the information, that's not really being accomplished...which is why I'm wondering why people do all these studies in the first place simply reinforcing what all the studies before them showed as well.

I'm not opposed to them in the least. I think they're a great starting point.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of studies. I'll chalk it up to your experience with the studies that you have read without knowing whether these were refereed journals, whether you actually read the full studies, how many studies you are basing your statements on, etc.

My experiences have been different. 98% of the hundreds of studies that I have read are in line with the standard which is to provide an abstract to give a brief overview, lit review to explain the background, detailed methods and results, and a discussion/conclusions/implications to wrap it up. That's also the going rate when we write a research article to submit to most refereed journals.

That depends on where you are looking and what you are expecting.

We aren't miracle workers. :)

I am "BIASED" towards people who can spell the word correctly.
:p:cool:

My thoughts exactly! :p

I'd be interested to see this study repeated with two minorities, like maybe a Hispanic and a black individual instead of a black and a white.

We actually had a discussion about this in one of my classes last year. Someone mentioned that it is easier to use a white person and a black person in those studies because one will always be viewed as the "good" person while the other will be viewed as the "bad" person.

If you were to use a black & a Hispanic person, many people would view them as a "bad" person vs. a "bad" person.

If you were to use a white & an Asian person, people would view it as a "good" person vs. a "good" person.

I don't know how logical that is, but many people in the class agreed with this person's ideas. But then this is the same class where a girl claimed all the people in the military are only there because they are uneducated & couldn't do better for themselves (didn't go over well, since we are in a military town and most of us only live here cause our parents were in the military)--and people agreed with her too.

Good point.

Especially when you consider cultural assimilation when people of other races come to the US.

I'm sorry, I'm not willing to risk my personal safety correcting the behavior or pointing out the behavior of someone who is acting like an AH. There are some crazy-a$$ people out there.

I think this researcher is totally missing the point.

i always wonder about this too.

To build on epchick's post, a big reason why blacks and whites are used in most studies of race and ethnic relations is because blacks have long been the largest racial minority group in the U.S. To get a comparable sample size of other minorities generally requires oversampling unless the research goal is to examine Asians and Hispanics but not to compare these groups to the larger groups of "black" and "white."

People of Hispanic origin have increased in population however this includes a large population of black (race) Hispanics (ethnicity/culture), white Hispanics, and Hispanics who identify with more than one race. So for studies that are secondary analyses of census data and other datasets or for researchers who collect their own data, the 2-category system is most applicable and accurate.

Lastly, there is a rich historical interaction between people of European and African descent in the U.S. and a few other societies. Often only matched or surpassed by the history of peoples of "Native American" descent in the Americas and people of European descent.

That's extremely logical based on the stereotypes of Hispanics (those who aren't racially white) and blacks. Overwhelmingly poor, undereducated, underemployed, criminogenic and looking to blame "the man" and wait for a government handout.

Asians are generally considered a "model minority" who are stereotyped as being smart and to be able to match wits with whites (who are the power and numerical majority). Asians are also held as being able to teach blacks and Hispanics how to take advantage of the GLORIOUS educational, social, and economic/entrepreneural opportunities that this country offers.

I had "little to no" racial preference. That sounds about right for me.

They have an Arab Muslim - Other People test:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implici...lectatest.html

Your data suggests a strong automatic preference for Black people over White people

Your data suggests a strong automatic preference for Barack Obama over John McCain

I took one on mothers and fathers also. I think, in my case, learning was involved. Let me try to explain...
The first block was associating Obama with good words (easy to do since I did have a bias there). Obama and good words were "K", McCain and bad words were "D". After the first block, I always found myself wanting to press "K" for good words whether I was supposed to or not. I didn't have this same difficulty with images. I had the same "learning" problem with the one about mothers and fathers but that was all words. I slowed down considerably when the pairings were reversed. I think my bias would have come out toward whichever block appeared first. Of course, I can't prove that, but that's how I felt while I was doing it.

You have completed the African American - European American IAT.
Your Result
Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between European American and African American.

The End of White America?
 

I debated starting another thread but this fits perfectly right here.

On The Chris Matthews show they are discussing an article in The Atlantic.

Here is an excerpt and the link.

Whether you describe it as the dawning of a post-racial age or just the end of white America, we’re approaching a profound demographic tipping point. According to an August 2008 report by the U.S. Census Bureau, those groups currently categorized as racial minorities—blacks and Hispanics, East Asians and South Asians—will account for a majority of the U.S. population by the year 2042. Among Americans under the age of 18, this shift is projected to take place in 2023, which means that every child born in the United States from here on out will belong to the first post-white generation.

Obviously, steadily ascending rates of interracial marriage complicate this picture, pointing toward what Michael Lind has described as the “beiging” of America. And it’s possible that “beige Americans” will self-identify as “white” in sufficient numbers to push the tipping point further into the future than the Census Bureau projects. But even if they do, whiteness will be a label adopted out of convenience and even indifference, rather than aspiration and necessity. For an earlier generation of minorities and immigrants, to be recognized as a “white American,” whether you were an Italian or a Pole or a Hungarian, was to enter the mainstream of American life; to be recognized as something else, as the Thind case suggests, was to be permanently excluded. As Bill Imada, head of the IW Group, a prominent Asian American communications and marketing company, puts it: “I think in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, [for] anyone who immigrated, the aspiration was to blend in and be as American as possible so that white America wouldn’t be intimidated by them. They wanted to imitate white America as much as possible: learn English, go to church, go to the same schools.”

Today, the picture is far more complex. To take the most obvious example, whiteness is no longer a precondition for entry into the highest levels of public office. The son of Indian immigrants doesn’t have to become “white” in order to be elected governor of Louisiana. A half-Kenyan, half-Kansan politician can self-identify as black and be elected president of the United States.


http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/end-of-whiteness

Your Thoughts?

One thing that upset me was watching "Bring It On: All or Nothing" with Hayden Panettiere and Solange Knowles. (I know, I know...I was bored and there was nothing else on TV)
Hayden's character transferred to a mostly-black school and they constantly referred to her as "white girl", "barbie", "vanilla latte", "frosted flake" and made comments like "looks like we're finally gettin some snow on campus", "coffee is like crack for white people"....
I wonder how people would react if it was the same movie, only racial roles were reversed and Beyonce's sister was the one dealing with racist comments. Sometimes I think racism has done a complete 180 to where people are afraid to even mention a black person's skin color, but racist comments about white people are ok.

That's only true to some extent...it still takes a level of "whiteness," or possibly just being fully assimilated into mainstream culture, to be elected to high office. Bobby Jindal may be the son of Indian immigrants who was elected LA governor--but he converted to Catholicism, has an impeccable education, and uses the name "Bobby" instead of "Piyush." All of these things make him more attractive to Mainstream America than if he was still a Hindu who called himself Piyush; if he had a discernable Indian accent instead of the vaguely Southern accent that he has.

The same holds true with Obama--sure, he's got a very "ethnic" name, but the fact that he doesn't carry himself with the same manner as say a Sharpton or Jackson makes him far more acceptable--not just to whites, but to all people who are uncomfortable with the afore-mentioned men. Add to that his education level and the fact that he's half-white, and you have someone who's clearly pretty electable.

The successes of Jindal and Obama, as well as David Paterson and others, does not indicate that the concept of "whiteness" is becoming obsolete in American politics. Instead, it seems that members of minority groups are possibly entering politics more "assimilated" to the mainstream culture than their predecessors, or people of color running for lower offices.

I think it's also a matter of class status, as you kinda alluded to. Money matters to Americans, bottom line. Money can even compensate for many "negatives" when a person is striving for a traditionally white occupation.

And, even though this country is becoming "post-white" or whatever, who really controls the majority of the wealth among us? Obama mentioned the issue of wealth distribution often during his campaign.

Solange would rip you a new one for calling her Beyonce's sister in reference to one of her own roles. She apparently doesn't like that much!

Anyway, the way I see it making comments like these about a black person is adding insult to injury in a racial sense. Making comments like these about a white person is still pretty novel considering it has only been 30-40 years since a black person could do so without threat of death. Unfortunately, I think that such comments don't appeal to the humor of a lot of viewers and really only serve as an illustration that black people are classless. Movies like this one give whites an inaccurate view into the mindsets of black people and perpetuate the idea that there is "savageness" lurking just under the surface.

Overall, saying unkind things about anyone is always inappropriate, but it goes a lot further than that.

Well, since a lot of people have had to deal with that in real life , I'm going to say that those responses in the movie were more tongue-in-cheek.