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

Black White

Conservatives help 65% 92%

Liberals help (n.s.) 75% 85%

Conservatives hang up 8% 5%

Liberals hang up 19% 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. 3rd 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

– 3rd 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 2 white 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 black60% 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 2 White 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 2 White 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