I agree, MysticCat. A clip of the article is sufficient and that is also why some sites will not let you cut and paste but so much of the article.
I also like for people to include their own response to an article to get the thread discussion started.
As for the article and the research:
This research will be received differently depending upon one's background and interests regarding race and ethnic relations. This is just saying what "we" already know about race and ethnicity which is that while it is not biological there are physical identifiers that are attributed to racial and ethnic groups. And people can identify intraracially but not the "other" (interracially). Nonwhites say all whites look alike regardless of ethnicity and culture; nonBlacks say all Blacks look alike regardless of ethnicity and culture; nonLatina(o)s say that all Latina(o)s look alike regardless of ethnicity and culture; nonAsians say that all Asians look alike regardless of ethnicity and culture. People tend not to say that for their own race and ethnicity because while they recognize the similarities that make them identify as that group, they think there are individual differences.
What's more interesting is looking at this through the lens of dominant-minority relations but that would be a different study conducted by researchers with a completely different background.