1. Interracial Perception, Affect and Behavior Thomas E. Malloy Rhode Island College NSF Sponsored Conference University of Connecticut SRM and Inter-group Processes May 13-15 2007

2. Co-Author Tiina Ristikari Oxford University Funding: Rhode Island College Grant Rhode Island College Grant American Psychological Association American Psychological Association Eastern Psychological Association Eastern Psychological Association

3. History and Theory 1968 Kerner Commission reported the United States was moving toward two societies, on black, one white – separate and unequal Hacker (1992) concluded that Blacks and Whites live in two separate, unequal, sometimes hostile nations Sigleman et al. (1996) document 40 years of increasing contact of Blacks and Whites and noted: fundamental questions remain unanswered about interracial contact in … casual encounters and intense relationshipsfundamental questions remain unanswered about interracial contact in … casual encounters and intense relationships

4. Social Psychological Theory Stephan & Stephans (1985; 2000) Integrated Threat Theory - anxiety and negative affect - threat of domination and control - threat of domination and control - fear of negative stereotyping - rejection by the in-group (acting White or like a Banana or like a Banana

5. Whites Responses to Blacks Stressful and uncomfortable (Ickes, 1984) Increased physiological arousal (Littleford et al., 2005; Blascovich et al., 2001; Mendes et al., 2002) Increased activity of amygdala in response to Black vs. White faces (Phelps et al., 2000) Impairment of cognitive functioning on Stroop Color Naming task following interaction with a Black person relative to a White person (Richeson & Trawalter, 2005) Concerned with appearing prejudiced (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998) Automatic cognition (Keltner et al., 2003)

6. Blacks Responses to Whites Stereotype Threat (Steele, 1997) Stigma Consciousness (Pinel, 1999) Negation of Negative Stereotypes (Crocker et al., 1998) Disengagement when stereotyped (Osborne, 2004) Heightened attention to the other (Fiske, 1993; Frable et al., 1990) Controlled cognition and attention to threats (Keltner et al., 2003)

7. Face to Face Interactions of Black and White Men -- 20 minute unstructured interactions -- 2 outgroup partners -- weak psychological situation

8. Design 34 Blacks and 34 Whites (17 4 person groups) Asymmetric Block Design B1 B2 W1 W2 B1 B2 W1 W2 B1 x x B2 x x W1 x x W2 x x 20 minute unstructured interactions

9. Measurements 5 Indicators of each of Big Five Factors Metaperceptions (MP) Trait Factors 3 indicators of Quality of Interaction Factor 3 indicators of Affect and MP Affect Factors Stigma Consciousness & Social Dominance Orientation (trait measures) Verbal and Non-Verbal behavior coded from videotapes (speaking time, short back channels, long back channels, questions asked, smiles, laughs – one Black and one White coder with all reliabilities greater than.85) (speaking time, short back channels, long back channels, questions asked, smiles, laughs – one Black and one White coder with all reliabilities greater than.85)

10. Interracial Trait Perceptions Table 1 Trait Judgments: Component Variances Perceiver Target Relationship B W B W B W Factor1.00.29*.00.00.59*.30* Factor2.12.36*.00.00.33*.21 Factor3.00.28*.00.00.57*.42* Factor4.13.31*.00.00.37*.35* Factor5.00.45*.00.04.44*.09* Factors 1 Extroversion 2 Good Natured 3 Conscientiousness 4 Emotional Adjustment 5 Intelligence

11. Interracial Metaperceptions Table 2 Trait Metaperceptions: Component Variances Perceiver Target Relationship Perceiver Target Relationship B W B W B W B W B W B W Factor1.36*.59*.00.00.18*.06 Factor1.36*.59*.00.00.18*.06 Factor2.44*.47*.00.02.19*.13* Factor2.44*.47*.00.02.19*.13* Factor3.15.57*.00.02.47*.17* Factor3.15.57*.00.02.47*.17* Factor4.35*.51*.03.05.12.08 Factor4.35*.51*.03.05.12.08 Factor5.33*.41*.02.03.16*.04 Factor5.33*.41*.02.03.16*.04 Factors 1 Extroversion 2 Good Natured 3 Conscientiousness 4 Emotional Adjustment 5 Intelligence

12. Quality of Interaction and Affect Table 3 Construct Variances: Affect, MP Affect, and Quality of Interaction Perceiver Target Relationship Perceiver Target Relationship B W B W B W B W B W B W Quality of Interaction.20.35.13.00.53.19 MP Positive Affect Factor.20.39.23.00.43.10 Positive Affect Factor.19.26.11.00.46.22

13. Interracial Behavior Table 4 Dyadic Behavior: Means and Component Variances Behavior Actor Partner Relationship/Error B W B W B W B W B W B WSpeaking Time.32.00.00.00.68 1.00 Questions 00.03.00.00 1.00.97 SBC.51*.37.09.01.40.62 LBC.61*.00.33.00.06 1.00 Smiles.20.55.00.04.80.41 Laughs.34*.69.00.02.66.30

14. Table 5 Individual Differences and Actor Effects in Behavior Back Channel Back Channel Individual Difference Speaking Time Construct Individual Difference Speaking Time Construct B W B W B W B W Stigma Consciousness.77* -- -.45* -- Stigma Consciousness.77* -- -.45* -- Social Dominance -.55* -- -.83* -- Social Dominance -.55* -- -.83* --

15. General Findings Study 1 Blacks uniquely differentiate interactions with and traits of Whites Whites use stereotypes to evaluate interactions with and traits of Blacks Maybe Whites dont differentiate interactions with any ethnic group (Possible but not plausible)

16. Study 2 Asocial Interracial Perceptions Used type generation paradigm developed by Linville et al. (1996) Blacks and White assigned randomly to in-group or out-group conditions in-group or out-group conditions Judge generates between 2 and 10 types of persons from the group Each type is rated on 25 traits (5 indicators of Big Five factors of study 1)

17. Analysis Each judge generates a matrix with dimensions of types (2-10) by factor (5) Estimate type variance, factor variance, and interaction variance (error) components Planned Contrasts for Blacks and Whites in-group and out-group judgments DV = type and factor variance components

18. Idiographic Variance Components Variance Component Psychological Interpretation Category Type the differentiation of the types on a set of traits Personality Trait the differentiation among traits when rating the set of types set of types Type x Trait Error

19. Mean Type and Factor Variances Race of Judge Race of Judge --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Blacks Whites Blacks Whites Target Category Target Category Target Category Target Category ---------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------- Black White Black White Black White Black White Type Variance 19.37 = 17.39 9.31 < 19.08 Factor Variance 2.79 = 2.86 2.28 = 1.79 Entries are unweighted variance components in a 10 point metric. Identical results for weighted and unweighted variances

20. General Key Findings Blacks differentiate interaction quality, affect for partners, and traits of White partners to a greater extent than Whites differentiate Blacks In terms of traits, this was observed in face to face and in an asocial context In terms of traits, this was observed in face to face and in an asocial context -

21. Theoretical Implications The psychological situation (Rotter, 1954) is different for Blacks and Whites in a face to face interaction Each has different goals in a stressful social interaction Whites: - occupied with appearing egalitarian and non-racist - focused on the novelty of the situation – Whites outnumber Blacks 14-1 in Rhode Island - actively monitoring own responses with less attention to the interaction partner - use stereotypes when making judgments

22. Theoretical Implications: Continued Blacks - occupied with negating negative stereotypes - When concerned with being stereotyped enact behavior to produce a positive social climate - Both aware of the status difference of the dyad members in a racist society: more acceptance of the status difference is associated with less responsive behavior (talking time, back channels) or a pattern of disengagement.

23. Applied Implications Environments where Blacks and Whites interact should be structured so that stereotype threat is eliminated For example, an Upward Bound remedial education program implies that one is low status and at risk for failure Alternatively, Talent Development Programs that emphasize cooperative learning (e.g., jigsaw classrooms) may enhance outcomes for minority and majority students