Aversive Form of Racism Samuel Gaertner & John Dovidio

Historical Change White attitudes less racist, more tolerant Subtle, indirect prejudice continues –“ Racist feelings and beliefs among white Americans are generally the rule rather than the exception. ”

Aversive Racists Sympathize with victims of past injustice Support policies for promoting equality Still possess negative feelings & beliefs: –Cognitive basis in info processing (blacks assoc. with poverty, crime, welfare) –Not hostility or hatred, but “ discomfort, uneasiness, disgust, and sometimes fear. ” –Unable to recognize institutional racism

Question Gaertner & Dovidio cite Kovel on “ aversive ” racism But is this “ aversive ” racism or how attitudes work in conditions of “ metaracism ” ?

Studies: “ pro-social ” behavior Wrong-number phone calls Anagram task Cognitive ability task Bystander helping Adjective association

Wrong-number calls BlackWhite Conservatives help65%92% Liberals help (n.s.)75%85% Conservatives hang up8%5% Liberals hang up19%3% “ Black ” vs. “ White ” callers asked S-s to call car garage

Interpretation Conservatives: blatant prejudice Liberals: –where norms strong (after hearing request), no prejudice –Before norms come into effect, prejudice

Anagram Helping Task Design: 2 x 2 x 2 factorial -- white S-s –White vs. black student confederates –Internal cause (failure to work hard) vs. external cause (difficulty of task) –First party request vs. 3 rd party request Dependent Variable: White S-s help or don ’ t help confederate White vs. black “ student ” confederates ask S-s for help

Anagram Helping Task Results –External cause:equal helping –3 rd party request:equal helping –Internal cause + self-request:73% whites helped 33% blacks helped

Interpretation Where norms for helping salient -- external cause; bystander request -- helping not discriminatory Where norms for helping not salient -- internal cause, self-request -- helping is discriminatory.

Cognitive Task Help-Seeking Design:2 x 2white S-s –Black vs. white “ partners ” (confederates) –Help offered vs. help sought Results: –Offered: 80% S-s accepted from black 55% S-s accepted from white –Solicited: 40% S-s asked help from black 60% S-s asked help from white Black / white “ partners ” offer help; S-s may ask for help.

Interpretation When black asks for help, both hi- prejudice & low-prejudice subjects help When norms for helping strong, helping not discriminatory Note Interaction Effect: S helps black more than white when asked, & S asks whites more than blacks for help

Status and Helping We ’ re skipping this experiment!

Bystander Helping Background: –Darley & Latane paradigm: More bystanders less help Design:2 x 2White S-s –Chairs fall on confed during “ ESP ” exp –White vs. Black “ victims ” –Subject alone vs. with other bystanders White bystanders may help white or black “ victim. ”

Bystander Helping: Results Victim alone: –S-s help 94% of blacks vs. 81% of whites (n.s.) Victim with bystanders: –S-s help 38% of blacks vs. 75% of whites

Jury Simulartion Experiment We ’ re skipping this one,too!

Adjective Association Task Task: decide whether string of letters is a word –Measure reaction time Design: 2 x 2White S-s –Positive vs. negative adjectives –Paired with “ whites ” or “ blacks ” White students try to recognize words.

Adjective Assoc. Task: Results Negative adjectives: –No differences paired w/ “ whites ” or “ blacks ” Positive adjectives: –Faster reactions when paired w/ “ whites ” than “ blacks ” No difs between hi- & low-prejudice S-s Whites associate positive traits with whites

Association Priming Study We ’ re skipping this one too!

Conclusions Helping behavior: –Where norms for helping clear & strong, whites do not discriminate –Where norms ambiguous or weak, whites do discriminate

Conclusions Associations: –Blacks not evaluated as more lazy, stupid, or dirty –Whites evaluated as more ambitious, smart and clean

Conclusions In most studies, high-prejudice whites and low-prejudice whites don ’ t differ much in their behavior.

Conclusions “ Prejudiced thinking and discrimination still exist, but the contemporary forms are more subtle, more indirect, and less overtly negative …” “ The contemporary form of prejudice is expressed in ways that protect and perpetuate a nonprejudiced, non- discriminating self-image. ”

Conclusions “ Attempts to educate people to accept egalitarian ideals would have little impact on aversive racists …” “ Like a virus that mutates into new forms, old-fashioned prejudice seems to have evolved into a new type that is, at least temporarily, resistant to traditional attitude-change remedies …”

Questions Interpretation: Is salience & strength of norms a crucial factor? Concept of “ aversive ” racism: Prejudice but conforms to P.C. norms? Anti-prejudice but succumbs to stereotypes