Prejudice and Politics Symbolic Racism Versus Racial Threats to the Good Life

8/6/2019 Prejudice and Politics Symbolic Racism Versus Racial Threats to the Good Life

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prejudice-and-politics-symbolic-racism-versus-racial-threats-to-the-good-life 1/18

J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y a n d Socia l Psychology1 9 8 1 , V o l . 40, No . 3 , 414-431

C o p y r i g h t 1 9 8 1 b y t h e A m er i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c .0 0 2 2 - 3 5 1 4 / 8 1 /4003-0414S00.75

Prejudice a n d Poli t ics: Symbolic Racism VersusRacial Threats to the Good Life

Donald R. KinderPoli t ica l Science Depar tment , Ya le U n i ve r s i t y

David O. SearsUnivers i ty o f Ca l i f o r n i a , Lo s Ange le s

Although theories of prejudice have been extensively catalogued, empirical con-f ron ta t ions between compet ing theor ies a re su rpr i s ing ly ra re . The pr im ary goa lof th e present research was to test tw o major theoret ical approaches to prejudiceby whites against blacks: real is t ic group confl ict theory, which emphasizes thet ang ib l e threats blacks might pose to whites ' pr ivate l ives; and a sociocul turalt h e o ry of p re ju dice te rmed symbolic racism, wh ich emphas izes abst ract , mor -alis t ic r e s en t men t s o f blacks , p resum ably t raceable to preadult social izat ion. T hemain de penden t va r i ab l e in our ana lys i s is suburban whi tes ' vo t ing behavior in

tw o m ayo ra l e lections in Los Angeles , both s t rongly inf luenced by racial issues,t ha t m a t ched th e s a m e tw o candida tes , o n e black and one whi te . In both elections,symbol ic raci sm ( sociocu l tu ra l p re judice) was the maj o r de t e rmi nan t o f vot ingagainst th e black candidate fo r people removed from possible personal threatsposed by blacks as wel l as for those a t r isk. Direct racial threa ts to whi tes ' p r iva tel ives ( to the i r jobs , thei r n eighb orho ods, thei r chi ldren 's schooling, thei r famil ies 'safety) had little effect on either antiblack voting behavior or symbolic racism.The art icle closes by deve loping th e impl ica t ions of these results fo r theories ofpre judice and , more s pecu l a t i ve ly , fo r i n t e rp r e t a t i on s of the effects o f vote rs 'pr iva te l ives o n thei r pol i t ical behavior .

Theories o f rac ia l pre jud ice suffer f romben ign neglec t . Al though the theor ies them-selves have been extensively and ably cata-

l ogued (most no tab ly , by Al lpor t , 1954; Ash-more & DelBoca, 1976; LeV ine & Campbel l ,1972) , empir ica l conf ronta t ions be tween a l -te rna t iv e theor ies occupy surp r is ing ly l i tt l e

Por t ions o f th is ma te r ia l were or ig ina l ly presented by

Sears and Kin d e r to the Western Psychological Asso-cia t ion , L o s Angeles, 1970. A more e l abora te ve rs iono f t h i s a r t i cl e w on th e 1 9 7 8 G or don A l l p o r t I n t e r g r ou pRelations Prize f rom th e Society for PsychologicalStudy o f Social Issues. T he d a t a were collected as p a r to f a l a rge r p ro jec t o n b l a ck m a y o r a l c a nd ida t e s un de rth e direction o f Thom a s P e t t i g r ew , to w h o m w e o w edeep t h a nk s . R ob e r t R i l e y w a s a n i nv a l ua b l e c o l l a b o -ra tor in ea r ly s tages of the pro jec t . John Morgan , An-d r e w W a l k e r , a n d R ic h a r d E. W h i tne y a l so c on t r i b u t e dv a l u a b l e ass i s tance. C o m m e n t s o n e a r l i e r d r a f t s b y Fa yeCro sby , B a r b a r a G u te k , R ic h a r d R. L a u , J o h n B .M c C o n a h a y , M . B r e w s te r Sm i th , T o m Tyle r , J a m e s Q .W i l s o n , R a y m o n d W o l f i n g e r , a n d t h e J o u r n a l ' s a n o n -

y m ous r e f e r e e s h a v e b e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l . S u p p o r tw as prov ided b y a R oc k e f e l l e r F ounda t i on g r a n t to Pet-t i g r e w , a n d b y N a t i o n a l Science F o u n d a t i o n a n d U.S.Pub l ic Hea l th Serv ice g r a n t s to Sears.

Reques ts fo r r e p r i n t s s h o u l d b e s e n t to D ona l d R.Kinder , Polit ical Science D e p a r t m e n t , Y a l e Unive rs i ty ,N ew H a v e n , C on ne c t i c u t 06 5 2 0 .

space in the prejudice l i tera ture . Some o b-servers even contend that such tests , a l-though never common, are now actua l ly onth e dec l ine (Ka tz , 1976) . The pr inc ipa l pur -pose o f this ar t ic le is to present a systematicempir ica l compar ison be tween two majortheoretical approaches to u n d e r s t a n d i n gwhites' prejudice aga ins t blacks: realistic

group confl ic t theory, which emphasizes th etangible threats blacks pose to whites' pri-

v ate l ives, and a sociocul tura l theory of prej-udice , w hich emphasizes ab stract , mo ral is t icresentments of b lacks traceable to preadul tsocia l izat ion.

We a r e pa r t l y i n t e r e s ted in the o r i g i n s o fprejudice itself, but ou r pr imary focus in thisarticle is on prejudice as a political force. Itrem ain s in th is cen tury , a s i t was in the l a s t,a po ten t inf luence in many pol i t ica l choices.Black cand ida tes fo r publ ic office at al l levelsof government are increasingly common;"forced busing" an d a f f i rma t ive action a rehot issues in the courts and in school board ,mayora l , congress iona l , and even re fe ren-dum e lec tions ; and even seemingly non rac ia lissues such as the "tax revolt" an d u n e m -p l oymen t a re often interpreted as h a v i n g a

414





41 6 D O N A L D R . K I N D E R A N D D A V I D O . S E A R S

threat hypothesis di rect ly , by us in g exp l ic itm eas u res of affect an d vu lne ra b i l i t y fo r eachof several potent a reas o f th rea t : neighbor-hood and social contact , economic compe-t i t ion , bus ing o f school chi ldren fo r rac ia li n t eg r a t ion , and th rea t s to persona l safe tyfrom bla ck vio lence. In so doing , w e hope atthe same t ime to be providing a sensitive test

of real is t ic group conflict t h eo ry .A second majo r approach to p re judice

a t t r ibu tes i t to soc iocu l tu ra l l ea rn ing . In th i sview, chi ldren an d ado lescen t s a cqu i re p re j -udice along with other values a nd at t i tudest h a t a re n o r m a t i v e in thei r social env i ron -

ments . C o n fo rm i ty p re s s u res, as well as thein t r ins ic s t reng th o f ear ly- learned a t t i tudes ,p romo te the pers is tence o f p re judice th ro ug hth e vicissitudes o f later life. Realistic th rea t sm ay come and go, but the solid core o f prej-udice rem a i n s , n o m at t e r h o w a n a c h r o n i s t i ci t may become. There is of course n o qu es -t ion t h a t the acquis i t ion of pre jud ice beg insin chi ldhood (e.g., As hm o re & De lB o ca ,1976; M ayko v i ch , 1975 ; M i dd le t o n , 1976 ) .Ou r par t icu la r pu rpose here is not to add to

this already well-documented case, bu t ratherto e x a m i n e the vers ion of sociocu l tu ra l l ea rn -in g with mos t po l i t i ca l impact today .

In years gone by, i t was easy to specifythe con ten t o f th i s ear ly- learned p re judice ;it centered o n in tent ional and legit imate dis-cr imina t ion a n d segrega tion . Ho wev er , overthe past 30 years , whi te opposi t ion to equaloppo r tun i ty has sharp ly dec lined . On vo t ingr ights , schools , publ ic accomodat ions , hous-ing, an d employment practices, segregation-is t s en t i m en t has by now a l l bu t disappeared .W hi te A m erica has become, in p r inc ip le a tleast , racially ega l i t a r i a n—a m o m e n t o u sa n d u n d e n i a b l y s ignif icant chan ge (Gree l ey& Sheatsley, 1971; Ta ylor , Sheats ley, &Greeley, 19 78). Since the explicit ly segre-gat ion is t , wh i t e s u p rem ac i s t view has a l l bu tdisappeared, it no longer can be a m a j o rpoli t ical force.

W h a t has replaced i t , we suggest , is a new

v a r i a n t tha t might be ca l led symbolic rac-ism. This w e define as a b len d o f a n t i b l a c kaffect and the kind of t radi t ional Americanm o ra l v a lu es em bo d i ed in the Pro t e s t an tEth ic (Sears & Ki n de r , 1971 ; S ea rs &M cC o n ahay , 1973 ; M cC o n ahay & H o u g h ,

1976) . Symbolic racism represents a formof resistance to chan ge in the rac ia l s t a tusquo based o n moral feel ings that blacks v i-o la te such t rad i t ion a l Am erican va lues asind iv idua l i sm a n d self-rel iance, th e w o r kethic, obedience, a n d discipl ine. W hites m a yfeel tha t peop le shou ld be r ewarded o n the i rmeri ts , which in turn should be based onh a r d w o r k a n d di l igent service. Hence sym-bolic rac i sm shou ld find its most vo ci ferousexpression on poli t ical i ssues that invo lve"unfa i r" government ass i s t ance to b lacks :welfare ("welfare cheats could find work ifthey t r ied") ; "reverse d i scr imina t ion" a n d

rac ia l quo tas ("b lacks shou ld no t be g ivena s t a t u s t hey hav e n o t ea rned") ; "forced"bu s in g ( "wh i t e s hav e wo rked ha rd fo r t h e i rneighborhoods , and for the i r ne ighborhoodschools"); o r " f ree" abo r t i o n s for the poor(" i f b lacks behaved m o r a l l y , t h ey w ou ld n o tneed abort ions") .

If sym bolic racism is rooted in deep-seatedfeel ings o f social moral i ty a nd propr ie ty andin ear ly- learned rac ia l fears an d s tereotypes ,it m ay well hav e l it t le to do wi t h a n y t an g i b l e

and direct impact of racial issues on thew h i t e person 's p r iva te life. T he s tereotypicalsymbol s o f blacks ' v io lat ion of t r ad i t i o n a lv a l u es , w h i c h a re in the m e d i a a n d i n f o r m a lc o m m u n i c a t i o n a l l the t ime, may be moreimpor tan t than th e realities of the more o c-cas iona l ac tua l damage b lacks do to whi tes 'ow n l ives . So, symbolic racism may be, po-l i t ical ly , the most potent vehicle for racialpre jud ice today , whereas rac ia l th rea t towhites ' personal l ives m ay hav e little polit-ical effect and l i t t le role in the or ig ins ofsymbol ic racism.

In s u m m a r y , o u r purpose is to investigatec o n t e m p o r a r y w hi te p re judice f rom tw o gen-eral theo ret ical points of v iew: real is t ic grou pconflict theory , which emphas izes the im-por tance o f t ang ib le rac ia l th rea t s to p r iva telife; and the symbolic racism version of thesoc iocul tu ra l perspect ive , which em phas izesgenera l an d m ora l i s t ic resen tm ents o f b lacks

and is mo re l ike ly t raceable to p readu l t so -c ia l iza t ion t h an t o cu r ren t r ac i a l t h rea t .These tw o theoretical perspectives will betested in an explicit ly polit ical context. Al-t h o u g h the s tudy o f a t t i t u des fo r the i r o w nsake has an honorable his tory , i t s value is



P R E J U D I C E A N D POLITICS 41 7

clear ly enhanced if the a t t i t u des can beshown to inf luence socia l ly impor tan t ou t-comes, such as w h i c h officials h o l d p o w era n d mak e p o l i cy . Co n seq u en t l y , o u r ma independen t var iab le is v o t i n g beh av io r in twosuccessive pivotal elect ions that were to de-termine whether the nation's third largestcity wo uld reject its i n c u m b e n t w h i t e m a y o rfo r its first b l ack may o r . A s w e sha l l show,racial issues were of central s ignif icance inboth races . This w a s par t ly because th e can -didates were o f differ ing races and partly

because race w a s de l ibe r a te l y mad e a m a j o rcampaign issue. W e shal l tes t these theoret-

ical a l te rna t iv es in the fo l l ow ing th ree m ainw a ys :

1. D o symbol ic racism an d rac ia l t h rea t sp r o du ce an t ib l ack v o t i n g beh av io r ? Thi sfirst cut analysis will assess the s imple maineffects of sym bol ic r ac ism and ra c ia l th rea ts(w i t h af fec ts toward po ten t ia l th rea ts andvu lne ra b i l i t y to those th rea ts t r ea t ed sepa-rately) .

2. Does th e expectancy-value version ofthe r ac ia l th rea t hypo thes is improve i t s p re-

diction of v o t i n g beh av io r ? Specificially, donegat ive af fec ts toward po ten t ia l t h r e a t sp r o du ce an t ib l ack v o t i n g beh av io r mo r eam o n g t he high ly vu lnerable than among th em i n i m a l l y v u l n e r a b l e ?

3. Is symbol ic rac ism i tse l f de ter m ined byr ac ia l th rea t , con t ra ry t o the sociocu l tu ra lper spect ive ou t l ined above?

M e t h o d

SubjectsEvidence fo r t h i s i nv e s t i g a t i on comes from pe r so n a l

i n t e rv iews w i th w h i t e s u b u r b a n i t e s d u r i n g the 1969 a n d1973 cam pa ign s for the m a y o r ' s office i n Los Angeles ,Ca l i fo rn i a . Both con tests fe a tu r ed th e white conserva-t ive i n cu m ben t , Sam u e l Y o r ty , cha l l en ged by the l ibera lblack c i ty co u n c i lm an , Tho m as B r a d ley—a s e t o f cir-cu m s tan ces t ha t pe rm i t t e d u s t he r a r e lu xu ry o f a co m -ple te repl ica t ion . On each occas ion , Brad ley w o n a p l u -ra l i ty in the pr im a ry e lec ti o n , t he r eby n a r r o w i n g a l a rge rfield to two . Yo r ty won the genera l e lect ion in 1969,w i th 53% of the vo te ; in 1973 , Brad ley wo n , w i th 56 %

of th e vote. In bo th yea r s , th e i n t e r v i e w ing took placeaf t e r t h e ^p r im a r y a n d a b o u t 3 weeks pr io r to the gen e r a lelection. In 1969 , 1 9 8 a d u l t s w e r e i n t e rv iewed by theN a t i o n a l Opin ion Research Cen te r , and in 1973 , 239were i n t e rv iewed by the Fie ld Corpora t ion .

T he sam p le a r ea w as i d en t i ca l in both cases: the 1s tand 12th council distr icts in the Ci ty of Los Angeles ,

w h ic h cover th e n o r the rn ha l f of the San F ern an d o Va l -ley . Neighborho ods w ere chosen wi th proba bi l i ties pro-po r t i ona l to the i r popu la t ion ; age and sex quo tas weret hen imposed ( fo r a ful ler description o f th is mixed sam-

pl ing design , see Sudm an , 1976) . The va l ley i s the la r g-e st "bedroom suburb" w i th in th e ci ty l imi ts , w i th a pop-u l a t i o n o f n e a r l y on e m i l l i o n . Hence ou r responden tsw e r e l ike w h i t e s u b u r b a n i t e s g e n e r a l l y — m a i n l y ho m e-o w n e r s with good incomes and above average leve ls ofeduc a t i on ( m o re t ha n o n e t h i rd had a t t en d e d college)—a n d m o s t identif ied with th e middle class. A m ajo r i t ywer e Pro t e s t an t ; t he r em a in d e r we re Ca tho l i c . N ea r lya ll w e r e m a r r i ed , a n d most were paren ts .

This section of the va l ley, l ike most sub urb an com-mu ni t ies , is r a the r d i s t an t f rom a ny major concen t ra t ionof b lacks , p r eve n t i n g h ig h levels of in te r racia l con tact ,but is never the less c lose en ough to yield w idespread feel-ings of racia l threa t . The va l ley i t se l f con ta ins a smal lb lack an d Chican e co m m u n i ty , Paco i ma , but as a who lew as o n ly 1.6% black in 1970. It is separated from th erest of the city by a low m o u n t a i n r a n g e and is far f romthe major black residential area of the city (e.g., it isabou t 20 mi les f rom Watts , a t the closest poin t ) . Abou tone t h i rd of the sample (36% in 1969 and 34% in 1973)repor ted v i r t u a l l y no con tact w i th blacks ( "are a roundblacks less than once a week") . Nevertheless, as wil l beseen , m an y v a l l e y r e s id en t s felt substan t ia l leve ls of ra-cial threa t , perhap s , in te r a l ia , because of the su bs t an t i a lb lack popu la t ion in the city as a who le (18% i n 1970),the sav age v io lence o f the 1965 Wat t s Riot (see Sears

an d M cCo n a hay , 1 973 ), an d the t he n slowly but inex-o r a b ly progress ing cour t case that u l t imate ly ( in 1977 )w ou l d force desegregation of the area's schools.

Measures

Personal racial threats. Accord ing to realist ic groupconflict t heo ry , th e po l i t ica l ly e f fect ive componen t ofracism shou ld be responden ts ' percept ions o f threa tsposed by blacks to their ow n personal l ives. W e assessedr ac ia l t h r e a t in four domains: (a ) neighborhood deseg-rega t ion an d in te r racia l socia l contact ; (b ) economicc om pe t i t i on ; (c ) racia l bus ing; and (d) black violence.The specif ic i tems are presented in Table 1, a long w i th

the co r resp onding d is t r ibu t ion o f repl ies to each.As ind ica ted ear l ie r , racia l threa t invo lves bo th af fect

and vu ln e r ab i l i t y ( a s we choose to call expectancy inthis con text ) . Affect ques t ions tapped the eva lua t iven a t u r e o f respondents ' reactions to a par t icu la r racia lt h r e a t if it were to mater ia l ize—for example , ho w theywou ld feel if the i r ow n neighborhoods were to be de-segregated . V u ln era bi l i ty ques t ions a re o f two so r ts .Subjective vu l n e rab i l i t y quest ions (conf ined for the mostpar t to the 1973 su rvey ) asked responden ts to judg e thel ikel ihood tha t a par t icu la r po ten t ia l persona l racia lthrea t wou ld actua l ly mater ia l ize— for example , thel ikel ihood tha t b lack fami l i es would soon be moving in to

thei r neighborhoods . As shown in Table 1 , substan t ia ln u m b e r s o f sub urb an responden ts fe l t persona l ly racia l lyth r e a t en ed , a l t ho u gh th e exact percentage varied con-s iderably from d o m a i n to domain a n d f rom question toquest ion . Object ive vu lnerabi l i ty ques t ions assessedw h e t h e r responden ts were in object ive s i tua t ions t h a tm i g h t mak e them m ore vu lnera b le to racia l threa ts , such



418 D O N A L D R . K I N D E R A N D D A V I D O . SEARS

T a b l e 1Personal Racial Threats: Affect an d Vulnerability

Correla t ion wi th

Percent t h rea tened" candidate preference

11

Ques t ion 1969 1973 1969 1973

Nei ghbo r hoo d des eg r egat ion an d in ter rac ia lsocia l contact

If a N e g r o / b l a c k f am i l y w i th a bou t t he s a m eincome an d education as you moved nextdoo r , wou ld you m i n d it a lo t , a li t t le, o rnot a t a l l ? (% a lot or a l i t t l e ) 36 30 .43** .48**

[ H o w likely is it t h a t ] a few black fami l ie swi l l m ov e i n t o th i s ne i ghbo r hood? (% v e r yo r s o m e w h a t l ike ly ) N A 80 N A .0 6

H ow s t r ong ly w ou l d you object if a m e m b e ro f y o u r f a m i l y w a n t e d to br i ng a Negro/

black fr iend h o m e to d i n n e r ? (% v e r ys t ro n g l y , s t r ong ly , o r s l i gh t ly ) 27 27 .50** .58**

Economic compet i t ionAre you satisf ied o r dissat isf ied w i th y o u r

economic ga ins compared to those o fNegr oes /b l a c ks ? (% dissa t i s f ied) 12 18 .03 .31

H a v e th e economic gains o f Negroes/blacks

been a bou t t he s a m e , m uc h g r ea t e r t h a n ,

g r ea t e r t h a n , o r l es s th a n you r s ov e r t hepas t f ive years? (% g r ea t e r ) 35 29 .30 .30**

In th e nex t fe w yea r s , it is possible t h a t yo uo r m e m b e r s o f y o u r fami ly wil l h a v e m o r econtac t w i th b la cks t ha n you do now. Howl i ke ly is it t h a t yo u wil l h a v e a blacksupervisor a t w o r k ? (% very o r somewha tl ike ly ) NA 48 NA -.18

In th e next f ew yea rs , how l ikely i s i t tha tm e m b e r s of y o u r fami ly or f r i ends will bedenied applicat ions fo r jobs o r promot ionsbecause of preferent ia l t r ea tment tom em ber s o f m i no r i t y g r oups ? (% v e r y o rs o m e w h a t l ike ly) N A 5 8 N A .12

Racia l b u s i n gH ow l ikely is it tha t b lack chi ldren wil l be

bused in to the e lem enta ry schools of th i sne i ghbo r hood? (% v e r y o r s om ewha tl ike ly) NA 46 NA .09

H ow l ikely i s i t tha t ch i ldren f rom thee l e m e n t a r y schools in th i s neighborhoodwil l be bused to other parts of the ci ty toach ieve school desegrega t ion? (% v e r y o rs om ewha t l i ke ly ) N A 3 6 N A .0 4

H a v e c h i ld r en (% wi t h c h i ld r en not inparochial school) 75 NA .03 NA

H a v e c h il d r e n in publ ic e lementa ry school N A 3 6 N A .16

Ha v e c h i ld r en in pu bl ic h igh school N A 2 1 N A -.05



PREJUDICE AND POLITICS 419

Ta b le 1 (Continued)

Percent t h r e a t e n e d "C or r e l a t i on wi t h

c a nd i da t e p r e f e r enc e6

Q u estio n 1969 1973 1969 1973

Black v io lenceHow l ikely is it that Negroes/blacks wil l

b r i n g v io lence to t h is n e i g h b o r h o o d ?ve r y o r s o m e w h a t l ike ly ) 35 27 .27 .46**

Live close to Pacoima (% in closest one t h i r dof census t r ac t s ) 30 30 .41** -.09

Note. NA = not a s ked ." T he percent n o t t h r ea t ened is the r e m a i n d e r of the s a m p le , l e s s a bou t 5% to 10% "don't k n o w s . "b

T h e e n t r y i s the g a m m a coef f ic ien t index ing th e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e r so n a l d i s co n t e n t a n d v o t i ng . Som e i t em s

h a v e been ref lec ted so t h a t in each case, a p o s it iv e g a m m a m e a n s t h a t th e t h r e a t e n e d a re m o r e l i ke ly to v o t e fo rYor t y . In the 1969 sample, n ranges from 157 to 178; in 1973, n r anges from 181 to 232.

* p < .05, by x2. ** p < .01, by x

2.

as hav ing chi ldren in the Los Angeles public schools( w h o m i g h t b e a f fec ted by b u s i n g ) o r l i v i n g close toP a c o im a (wh i c h m i gh t i ncr ea s e v u l n e r a b i l i t y to resi-d en t i a l desegrega t ion o r c r i m es c om m i t t ed by m i n o r i -ties).

Symbolic racism. T h e s ym bo l i c r a c i s m i t em s a resh ow n in Table 2 . As i nd i c a t ed ea r l i e r , t h ey a r e c ha r -acterized by their abstract ion, by thei r mora l tone , an d

by the absence of any reference to the respondent ' s per -s onal s i t u a t i on . A lm os t a l l r e l ev a n t i t em s w er e u s ed in1969. In 1973 , in an e f for t to ref ine o u r m e a s u r e m e n to f s ym bo l i c r a c i s m , a f a c t o r a na ly s i s w as c onduc t ed o nth e m o r e n u m e r o u s s y m b o l ic ra c is m i t e m s a v a i l a b l e .T w o m a i n f a c t o r s em er ged . O n e clea r ly ref lected a t t i -tudes o n racial bus ing: The five bus ing i t ems loaded

f rom .50 to .81 on i t , and less than .20 on the o therfac tor . The second fac tor was ne a r ly a s dis t inc t ive : T her em a i n i ng n i n e i t ems loaded f rom .36 to .65 on i t , andonly one of them loaded as h igh as .23 on the bus ingfactor . Th i s d i m ens i on i nc luded a m i x t u r e o f s ym bo l i cresentments , such a s a f f i r m a t i v e a c ti o n , g o v e r n m e n t fa -

vor i t i sm, a n d black ac t iv i sm. A s s h o w n in Ta b le 2, thei tems wi th the h ighes t load ings forme d the bas i s of twoaddi t ive sca les in each surv ey: opposit ion to racial bus-in g an d expressive racism. T he scales a r e n o t i den t i c a lin both years, since n ew questions wer e added in 1973 ,but the core of i t ems i s the same. The median gammaacross i tems w i th in the bu s ing sca le w as .63 in 1969 and.65 in 1973; wi th in th e express ive r ac i sm sca le , i t was.43 and .38. Defined in t h i s wa y , the two indexes rep-r es en t c onc ep t ua l ly s epa r a b le d i m ens i ons o f s ym bo l i cr a c i s m , a l t hough a s expected , they a re cor re la ted (in1969, Pearson r = .33; in 1973, r = .39).

Candidate preference. Respondents were asked di -

rec t ly who they in tended to vo te for . In 1969, 45% re-ported that they in tended to vote fo r Y o r t y , 43% f o rBradley , and 13% were undecided. In 1973, th e corre-sponding percentages were 5 1 % fo r Y o r t y , 4 1 % fo rBradley , and 8% undecided.

In both surveys, respondents wer e also provided witha l i s t o f s ix t r a i t adjec t ives and asked whether or no t

each described the two candidates, complet ing the listfi rs t fo r Y o r t y an d t hen fo r B r a d ley . Th r ee of the t r a i t sw ere pos i t ive (hone s t , in te l l ig ent , ef fec t ive) and threen eg a t i ve (unde r ha nded , unp lea s a n t , c o r r up t ) . An ev a l -ua t i v e i ndex w as f o r m e d fo r each candida te , r ef lec t ingt he nu m ber o f pos it iv e t r a i t s a t tr i bu t ed t o h i m m i nu st he nu m b er o f nega t i v e tr a i t s a t t ri bu t ed (henc e r a ng i ngfrom -3 to +3). An overall candidate preference mea-

s u r e wa s t hen c ons t ruc t ed b y s ub t r a c t i ng t he Y or t y i n -d ex f r om t he B r a d ley i ndex . In bo t h 1969 a nd 1973 ,th is m e a s u r e r a n g ed f rom — 4 , indica t ing a decided pref-erence fo r Y o r t y , to + 4 , indicat ing a decided p r e f e r enc efo r B r a d l e y .

T he a na ly s i s o f v o t i ng beha v i o r w e wil l present usest he t r a i t m ea s u r e o f c a nd i da t e ev a lua t i on , r a t he r t h a nv o t e in te n t io n , because a 9-poin t sca le i s more sens i tivet ha n i s a s i m p le d icho to m o u s choice. Fur thermore , useof a d i c ho t om ous dependen t v a r i a b l e in m ul t i p l e r eg r es-sion analysis violates standard Gau ss -M arko f f assump-t i on s ( W o n n a c o t t & W o n n a c o t t , 1 9 7 0 ) , w h i c h posesdifficult ies fo r es t ima t ion a n d s igni f icance tes t ing . T h e

candida te preference index is h ighly cor re la ted w i th votei n t en t ion (i n 1 9 6 9 , G a m m a = .90; in 1 9 7 3, G a m m a =. 88) , o f course , an d the basic f ind ings a re the s a m ewhichever measure i s used.

Resul ts

A s indicated ear l ier , white opposit ion toequa l oppor tun i ty for b lacks has a l l bu t d is-appeared , accord ing to na t iona l su rvey ev i -dence (e.g., Taylor , Sheatsley, & Gree ley ,1978) . O u r samples resemble th e rest of the

white pub l ic in th is respect. Despi te Jensen-ism, few thought blacks less inte l l igent thanw h i t e s (15% in 1969; 1 6 % in 1973); despitecont roversy over " forced bus ing" fo r schoolin tegra t ion , a lmost n o o n e supported sepa-ra te schools for blacks (8% and 10%, re-




T a b l e 2Symbol ic Racism

P er c en t non l i be r a lC o r r e l a t i on wi t h

candida te preference

Ques t ion 1969 1 9 7 3 1969 1973

Express ive rac i smD o y o u t h i n k tha t mos t Negroes /b l acks who receive

m o n e y f rom wel f a r e p r og r a m s c ou ld ge t a l ongw i t h o u t it if they t r i ed , or do they rea l ly need th eh e l p ? (% could get a l o n g ) , 54 52 .69** .56**

Negr oes /b l a c ks s ho u ld n ' t pus h t hem s e lv es wh er et hey ' r e n o t w a n t e d (% ag ree ) , 63 64 .48** .44**

Because o f pa s t d i s c r i m i na t i on , it is s om et i m esnecessa ry to se t up quotas for admiss ion tocol lege of m i n o r i t y g r oup s t uden t s (% disagree) , NA 47 NA .39**

Do you t h i n k Los Angeles c i ty officials pay more ,less, or the s a m e a t t en t i on to a r eques t o rc o m p l a i n t f rom a black person as f rom a w h i t eperson? (% m o r e ) , 26 34 .55** 130**

Of the g r oups on the c a r d , a re t h e r e a n y w h i c h y o ut h i n k h a v e g a i n e d m o r e t h a n t h e y a re e n t i t l e d t o ?(% choo s ing "black") 8 10 .40 .48*

It is w r o n g to set up quo t a s to a dm i t b l a c k s t uden t sto co l lege who don ' t m eet the us ua l s t and a rds (%a g r ee ) N A 7 3 N A . 3 0

Over the pas t f ew yea rs , b lacks hav e got mo re thant h e y deserve (% agr e e ) , 23 30 .40* .40**

In L o s Ange les , wou ld you say m a ny , s om e , o r on l ya few blacks miss out on jobs or p romot ionsbecause o f r a c ia l d i s c r im i n a t i o n ? (% o n l y a fewor n o n e ) 34 36 .49** .32*

Opposi t ion to b us ingB u s i n g e l e m e n t a r y sc ho o l c h i l d r en to schools in

o t h e r p a r t s of the c i ty o n l y h a r m s t h e i r e d u c a t i o n(% a g r e e ) , 54 62 .43** .25

In s om e cases it is best fo r c h i l d r e n to a t t e n de l e m e n t a r y s choo l s ou t s i de t h e i r ne i ghbo r hoo d (%a g r e e ) , 68 70 .45** .2 6

Are you in f a v o r of or opposed to the b u s i n g ofc h i l d ren to achieve rac ia l desegrega t ion of thep ub l i c schools? (% oppos ed) , N A 8 6 N A .42*

If the Sup r em e C ou r t o r de r ed bus i ng to a c h i e v edes eg r ega t i on of the pu bl ic schools , w ou l d you beopposed to i t? (% yes ) , N A 7 9 N A .40*

If necessary, children should be bused to achieve

rac i a l desegrega t ion of the pu bl ic schools (%d i sagree ) , N A 83 N A .22*

Note. T h e per c en t l i b e r a l is the r e m a i n d e r of the s a m p le , l e s s a bo u t 5% to 1 0% "don ' t knows . " I t e m w o r d i n g s a rea p p r o x i m a t e ; exa c t w o r d i n gs a r e a v a i l a b l e u p o n r e q u e s t . C o r r e l a t i o n s a r e g a m m a . A s u b s c r i p t x i nd i c a t e s t h a t t hei tem is included in the indices of expressive racism used in the subsequent analysis , and a subscript y that i t isi n c l u d e d i n the a n t i b u s i n g inde x . NA = n o t a s k e d .* p < .05, by x

2. ** P < .01 , by x

2.





4 2 2 D O N A L D R . K I N D E R A N D D A V I D O . SEARS

Table 3Effects of Symbol ic Racism an d Racial Threats on Candidate Preference

Mea s u r e

Expressive racismOpposi t ion to bus i ng

1969 ( «= 1 7 8 )

E qua t i on

1 2 3

Symbol ic r ac i sm

.365** — .309**

.217** — .260**

1973 (« = 220)

Equa t ion

1 2 3

.338** — .300**

.119 — .108

Racia l th rea t s

Neighborhood desegrega t ion an dinte rrac ia l socia l contact

Oppose neighborhood desegrega t ion — .070 -.066 — .122 .083Dislike social contact with blacks — .124 .057 — .053 -.039Likel ihood of neighborhood

desegregat ion — NA NA — -.038 -.030

Economic compet i t ionE c onom i c r e s en t m en t o f blacks — .080 -.022 — . 179* . 113Likel ihood o f black superv i sor — N A N A — -.103 -.062Like l ihood o f being a f fec ted by

a f f i r m a t i v e act ion — N A N A — -.058 -.112

Racia l bus ingC h i ld r en not in parochial school — .094 .136* — — —C hi ld r en in publ ic e lementa ry school — — — — -.090 -.083

Chi ldren in publ ic high schoo l — — — — -.039 -.046Likel ihood o f bus ing blacks i n — N A N A — .057 .012Like l ihood o f bus i ng wh i t e s o u t — N A N A — -.076 -.025

Black v io lenceCloseness to PacoimaFear of black violence

— .107

— .148*

R 2v a lues

.223 .096

.075

.160*

.253

— -.037

— .133

.153 .055

-.040.112

.144

Addi t iona l va r iance cont r ibuted by :Sym bolic racism (3-2) .15 7 .089

Rac ial th re at (3-1) .030 -.009

Note. Var iables a re coded so tha t a pos i t ive ef fec t of e i ther r ac i sm or th rea t wil l yield a posi t ive beta . Entry is thes t anda rd ized regression coefficient (be ta ) fo r each predictor var iable. R 2

is adjusted fo r n u m b e r o f var iab les in theana lys i s .* / > < .05. * * / > < . 0 1 .

by symbol ic rac ism? T he a ns w er i s no . In no t accounted for by rac ia l th rea t (16% an dthis an a lys is we s ta r t by de te r m inin g how 9% for the 2 yea rs, a s ind ica ted by su b t ract-much rac ia l th rea t adds to R

2once symbol ic ing the R

2fo r Equa t ion 2 f r o m t h a t fo r

rac ism a l ready has been inc luded in the Equa t ion 3). This procedure has the a d v a n -

e q u a t i o n — w h i c h is not v e r y m u c h (3% in tage o f pool ing a ll the c on t r ibu t ions ma d e1969, 0% i n 1973; subtract th e R2

fo r E q u a - by the sepa ra te racia l threat i tems into o n et ion 1 f rom t h a t fo r E q u a t i o n 3). In c on t r a s t , i nc r emen t to R

2. This compar ison is in our

w h e n this procedure is reversed, the power view the strongest and most compel l ing testof sym bol ic racism is m ain ta in ed . Symbol ic of the ma in e f fec ts of symbo l ic rac ism andracism accounts for considerable var iance racial threat. I t i s apparent that symbolic



P R E J U D I C E A N D POLITIC S 423

racism h a s powerfu l u n i q u e effects, w h e r e a sthose of rac ia l th rea t a re on ly a t chancelevels.

A s indicated ear l ier , even this analysis

tests on ly the m o s t r u d i m e n t a r y v e r si o n o fou r hypotheses, s ince it assesses only th em a i n effects of each set of var iab les . Beforemo v in g on to tests of more complex hy-potheses, ho wev er , w e need to d e te rmine tha tthese effects of symbolic racism are not ar-tifacts o f some th i rd va r i a b l e or set of v a r i -ables. A most obvious possibil ity is demo-graphic fac tors , bu t these resu l t s werecomplete ly unaffected by the addition ofd e mo gra ph ic va r i a b l e s (a ge , ed uc a t ion , a n d

sex) to the regression analysis .Po l i tica l p red ispos i t ions represent ano ther

category of artifactual possibilities. W e ha veinterpreted the effects of symbo l ic rac ism asreflecting racial prejudice, an d hence as re-vea l ing a predo m ina nt ly rac ia l bas is fo r thechoice between the two c a nd id a te s . B u t theycould conceivably instead reflect some o thercorre la ted pol i t ica l predisposit ions, such asl ibera l ism-conservatism a n d p a r t y identifi-cation, s ince the cand ida tes a l so differedqui te ma rked ly on those d imen sions . Indeed ,in both contes ts , bo th pred ispos i t ions wereassociated with cand ida te pre fe rence , wi thRe pub l ic a ns suppo r t ing Yor ty more tha nDemocra ts did (in 1969, r = .15; in 1973,/ • = .12; ps<.10), a n d c onse rva t i ve s morelikely to prefe r him than l ibe ra l s were ( in1969, r = .25; in 1973 , r = .34; ps < .01).

B ut these political predispositions did notaccount for the effects of symbol ic rac ism.

Whe n they were added to the 1969 regres-sion a na l ys i s summa r ized in Table 3, v i r -tual ly nothing changed: Candidate prefer-ence did not become more predictable;neither par t i sansh ip nor liberalism-conser-va t ism cont r ibu ted independent ly to thevote, once th e effects due to symbolic racismwere taken in to account ; and f ina l ly , noneof th e regression coefficients indexing th eeffects of rac ia l a t t i tudes changed wi th theent rance o f pol i t ica l d isposit ions into th e

regression analysis . To be su re , a d d ing themto the 1973 regression analysis resul ted ina modest bu t clear ly s ignif icant i n c r e m e n tin R

2(due en t i re ly to ideo logy) . Never the-

less , symbol ic racism continued to h a v e a

s ignif icant c on t r ibu t ion to v o t i n g ( t h o u g hdiminished by about 10%) , an d rac ia l th rea tsto pe r sona l life c on t inued to h a v e n o effecta t al l , when th e unstandard ized regress ion

coefficients were considered. Symbol ic rac-ism had subs tan t ia l ly more effect than ide-o logy, even w hen added to the equa t ion af terit . Hence there is some evidence of slightlyincreased shared var iance f rom 1969 to1973. But in general , th e effects of symbolicracism on vo t ing pre fe rences seem indeedproperly interpreted as mainly reflecting ra -c ia l pre jud ice ra the r th an n on rac ia l po l it ica lpredispositions. T he racial issue generally,an d symbol ic racism in pa r t i cu l a r , w a s cen-

tral to white voters' choices in these tw oelections.

The expectancy-value approach to racialthreat. T he sup r i s ing l y poo r sho wing of theracial threat hypothesis so fa r suggests that

w e m a in l y d evo te ou r r em a in ing a na l yse s totesting it m ore precisely, in the hope of find-in g c ond i tions un d e r w h ich it does ho ld , evenif they a re more l imi ted than or ig ina l ly ex-pected. A n obv ious first m o v e is to test anexpec tancy-va lue approach to racia l t h r ea t .This approach suggests in general that choicebeha v io r is the p rod uc t o f both a f fec t towardsome end s ta te and the likelihood of its oc-cur rence . So the pol i t ica l imp act of any givendisliked aspect o f rac ia l change ought to begrea te r among respondents most pe rsona l lyvu l ne r a b l e to being affected by it . For exa m-ple , opposit ion to in tegra ted ne ighborhoodsshould have maximum political impacta mong r e spond en t s whose own ne ighbo r -

hoods are in danger of being desegregated.T o test this expectancy-va lue hypothesis ,w e considered each area of racial threat int u r n . In each case w e de te rmined the impac ton candidate preference of the affect abou tthe t h r e a t (e. g. , l iking or disl iking deseg-regation of one's ow n neighborhood) sepa-ra te ly fo r v uln era b le respondents (e .g ., thosefeeling their ow n neighborhood w as likely tobe desegregated) an d those n o t v u l n e r a b l eto it (e.g., those feel ing i t was unl ike ly to be

desegregated). In operational terms, regres-sion Equa t ion 2, the resul ts of which aresh o w n in Table 3, w as reestima ted, this t imeseparate ly fo r v u l n e r a b l e a nd no t vu l ne r a b l erespondents , tak ing th e t h r ea t s one a t a t ime .




If the pe r s o n a l m an i fe s t a ti o n o f rac ia l th rea tw as fueling antiblack voting, these regres-

sion coefficients oug ht to be l a rger fo r v u l -n e rab l e t h an fo r n o n v u ln e rab l e r e s po n den t s.

T he resul ts provide n o suppor t fo r th i sexpectancy-value vers ion of the racial threa thypothes is . T he da t a a re s h o w n in Table 4.In every s ingle case, affect toward the spec-ified rac ia l th rea t has more effect on vo t ingbeh av io r a m o n g th e l eas t vu lnera ble respon-den ts—exact ly con t ra ry to the hypo thes i s .This difference is s ignificant in o n ly one case( u s in g M ult ip l ica t ive Affec t X Vu ln e rab i l i t yin terac t ion t e rms ; see C o hen & C o hen ,1975). It would be inappropriate ( though

t e m p t i n g ) to conclude tha t supposed rac ia lth rea t s ac tua l ly have mos t po l i t i ca l impactam o n g those fo r whom they a re most hy-pothe t ica l , bu t the d a t a d o cons i s ten t ly ru nc oun te r to the racial threat hypothesis .

A second and complementary version ofth e expectancy-va lue rac ia l th rea t hypo th-esis predicts that symbolic racism wil l h a v e

imp ortan t pol i t ical effects only amo ng w hiteswhose ow n lives are safe from racial change.

Ideological o r mora l th ink ing m ay be a l u x -u ry that can be afforded only when an issue

has no tangible consequence; for example,on ly people wi thou t ch i ldren vu lnerable tobeing bused wil l decide about busing on thebasis o f thei r racial prejudice or in tegra t ion-is t bel iefs . Vulnerable parents , in this v iew,t h i n k f i rs t about the welfare of thei r ownchi ld ren a nd second abou t what is best fo rsociety as a whole. So , according to this hy-pothesis , only among the n o n v u l n e r a b l e re-spon dents should symbolic racism affect vot-in g behav ior .

T he d a t a do not supp ort th is vers ion of ther ac ia l th rea t hypo thes i s e i ther , a s s ho wn inTable 5. Symbolic racism relates to candi-date p reference a t almost exact ly th e s am elevel no mat te r how persona l ly vu lnerableth e respondent is . This is t rue fo r both ver-sions o f symbolic racism: express ive racismand opposition to bus ing . Not one o f the in -

Table 4Impact on Candidate Preference of Affects A ssociated With Potential Racial Threats A m o n gRespondents High and Low in Vulnerability

Im pact of a f fec t am ong respondentsw ho are:

Hi gh ly v u lne r a b le N o t v u lne r a b le

A ffec t / vu l n e rab i l i t y

Thr ea t o f neighborhood desegrega t ion an d interracia l socia l contact

Oppose neighborhood desegrega t ion

Likelihood of neighborhood desegregat ion (1973)P r o x i m i t y t o P a c iom a (1969 )P r o x i m i t y to Pacoima (1973)

Dislike social contact w i th blacksLike l ihood of neighborhoo d desegrega t ion (197 3)

.05,-.05- . 1 2

.1 0

856248

85

1.51..25.7 6

.3 3

398469

39

Threa t of economic compet i t ion

Economic resentments of blacks

Like l ihood o f being a f fec ted by a f f i r m a t i v e ac t ion (1973)Like l ihood of hav in g a black superv i sor (197 3)

-.05.01

73103

.21

.1881

113

T h r e a t of black violence

Fear o f b lack v io lencePro x i mi t y to P a c o i m a (1969)Proximi ty to Pacoima (1973)

.22

.04

4862

.26

.46

6984

Note, b is the uns tandardized regress ion coef f ic ien t , th e a pp r op r i a t e m ea s u r e fo r s ubg r ou p c om pa r is ons . E n t r ie swi th c om m on s ubs c r i p t s differ s igni f icant ly . For pro xim i ty , the compar i son i s between adjacent and d i s tan t ; forl ikel ihood, between very l ikely and u nl ik ely , igno r ing l ikely .






of p e r s o n a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y to b l a c ks ? T o testt h i s , m ul t i p l e r e g re s s i ons w e re c ond uc t ed ,us ing th e severa l ind ices o f v u l n e r a b i l i t y torac i a l t h r e a t a s pred ic tors of the tw o v e r s i o n s

o f s ym b o l i c r a c i s m ( exp re s s i ve r a c i s m a n doppos i t i on to b u s i n g ) .R a c i a l t h r e a t i s not a s t rong p red i c t o r o f

sy m b o l i c r a c i s m , as s h o w n in T a b le 6. Re-gress ing the express ive rac i sm index o n 11i n d i c a t o r s o f rac ia l v u l n e r a b i l i t y y i e ld s a l i n kb e t we e n th e t w o , but i t is a t e n u o u s o n e(R

2= .049). W h e n m e a s u r e s o f social back-

g r o u n d ( a ge , e d uc a t i on , a n d sex) a re a d d edt o the e q u a t i o n , j u s t o n e m e a s u r e o f v u l n e r -abi l i ty cont inues to exert a statist ically re-

l i ab l e e f f e c t : S u b u r b a n i t e s w h o t h o u g h t i tl ike ly t ha t t hey (o r m e m b e r s o f t he i r f a m i lyo r their f r i ends ) would be denied oppor tu-ni t ies fo r jobs o r prom ot i ons b eca us e o f pre f -e r e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t to m e m b e r s o f m i n o r i t ygroups were h igher in express ive racism t h a nw e r e t hos e w h o a n t i c i pa t ed n o i n t e r f e r e n c ef r o m a f f i r ma t i v e ac t ion prac t ices .

M u c h the same holds fo r bus ing . Oppo-si t ion to r a c i a l b us i ng w a s i n t e n s e , o f course ,bu t t h i s wa s so l a rge ly i r r e s pec t i ve o f pe r -s o n a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y . In p a r t i c u l a r , a t t i t u d e so n b u s i n g w e r e u n r e l a t e d to w h e t h e r o r n o tr e s pond e n t s t hough t b l a c k c h i ld ren w e rea b o u t to be bused in to the i r loca l schools ,w h e t h e r w h i t e c h il d r e n f r o m t h e i r n e i g h b o r -hoods were soon to be bused in to b lacks choo l s, o r w h e t he r t hey h a d c h i ld ren i n t heLos Ange les school sys tem. As sho w n inTab le 6, the o n l y s ign i f ican t ef fec t w a s d u et o a n i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n j u d g m e n t t h a t i t

w as l ikely that whi tes would b e bused o u to f t he i r ne i ghb o rhood s a n d h a v i n g c h i ld r e nin the Los Angeles h igh schools . But i t is ,once aga in , a n a nom a lous r e s u l t fo r the r a-cia l t h r e a t h y p o t h e s i s: s u b u r b a n i t e s w h o b e -l ieved t ha t t he i r o w n high school aged chi l -d ren m i gh t become par t ic ipan t s in a racia lb u s i n g p r o g r a m w e r e a c t u a l l y le ss i n t e n s e l yopposed to b u s i n g . H o w e v e r t h i s c u r i o u s re -s u l t is interpreted, the i n f l uenc e o f v u l n e r a -bi l i ty o n a t t i t ud e s t ow a rd r a c i a l b us i ng w a s

m a r g i n a l at bes t (R2

- .03) . Opposi t ion tor a c i a l b u s i n g d i d n o t c om e f r o m those per-s o n a l l y a t r i sk .

T he i nd e pend e nc e o f r a c i a l t h r e a t a ndsy m b o l i c rac i sm can be i l l u s t r a t ed i n ye ta n o t h e r way. Liv ing c lose to b lacks was as -

soc ia ted wi th suburbani tes ' s ense of rac ia lt h r e a t : Fears t ha t b l a cks m i gh t b r i n g v i o -l e nc e t o t he i r ow n ne i ghb o rhood d i m i n i s he dw i t h dis tance f r om P a c o i m a , s ha rp ly so in

1 9 6 9 ( G a m m a = -.47, p < . 01 ) and less sobu t s til l s i gn i f i c a n t l y i n 1 9 73 (G a m m a =-.25, p < .05). In b o t h yea r s , how ev e r , s ym -bolic racism w a s c om ple t e ly un re l a t e d top rox i m i t y to blacks: Opposi t ion to b u s i n gand exp ress ive rac ism w ere jus t a s i n t ens ea m ong s ub u rb a n i t e s w hos e pe r s ona l l i ve sw e r e centered fa r f rom b lacks as fo r those

w ho l ived a d j a cen t t o P a c o im a (m ea nG a m m a a c r o s s the f o u r tests = -.03). So

a l t hough th e personal threat c om ponen t o f

s u b u r b a n r a c is m w a s r e spons i ve to t he f e a r -p r o v o k i n g "realities" of a d u l t l i fe , s ym b o l i cf o r m s o f racism were not . Whether s ub u r -b a n i t e s l i ved m a ny m i l e s f rom b l a c ks o rw i t h i n a s t one 's t h ro w ha d no t h i n g t o d o w i t htheir symbolic racism.

F ina l l y , w e explored o n e l a s t rou te b yw h i c h rac ia l th rea t might conce ivab ly i n f lu -enc e sym b o l ic f o rm s o f ra c is m . R a t he r t ha np rod uc i ng oppos i t i on t o r a c i a l c ha nge , vu l -n e r a b i l i t y to r a c i a l t h r e a t m i gh t polarize

whi tes ' rac ia l a t t i tudes . Threa t m a y p r o v o k em o re t h i n k i n g a b o u t r a c e, a n d a c co rd i ng t oTesser's ( 1 9 7 8 ) r es ea r ch , t h i n k i n g a b o u t a na t t i t ud e ob j ec t m a y lead to m o r e e x t r e m ea t t i tudes . W e t e sted th i s hypothes i s b y "fold-i ng" t h e tw o sym bol ic rac i sm indexes a t the i rneu t r a l po i n t s t o f o rm new d epe nd e n t va r i -ables a n d t hen r e pea ti ng th e regress ion ana l -y s e s s u m m a r i z e d in T a b le 6. As i t t u r n e dou t , ex t r em e a t t i t ud e s o n express ive racism

o r bus ing were no more c om m on a m ong thep e r so n a l l y v u l n e r a b l e t h a n a m o n g t ho se w h ow ere pe r s ona l l y r em ove d f r om rac ia l th rea t s .Fo r expressive racism, of the 11 indicatorso f v u l n e r a b i l i t y to r a c i a l t h r e a t i nc lud ed inth e reg re s s i on equa t i on , none w a s re la ted toextremity. Col lect ively, their predictive fa i l-u re w a s comple te (R

2= . 00) . S im i la r ly , su b-

u r b a n i t e s w h o t h o u g h t t h a t b u s i n g w a s co m -ing soon t o Los Angeles o r who ha d chi ldrene n ro l l e d in the Los Angeles school sys tem

he ld on ly s l i gh t l y m ore ex t r em e v i e w s o nb u s i n g t h a n d id those w h o w ere pe r s ona l l yu n a f f e c t e d (R

2= .05, p < .05). So p e r s o n a l

v u l n e r a b i l i t y t o r a c i a l c ha nge d i d no t p ro -d u c e m o r e e x t r e m i t y o n o u r symbol ic rac i smm e a s u r e s .



P R E J U D I C E A N D POLITICS 427

Table 6E f f e c t s of Racial Vulnerability on Symbolic Racism (1973 Only)

Type of symbolic racism

Vulne r a b i l i t yExpress ive

racismOppos i t ionto busing

Racia l t h r e a t to n e i g h b o rh o o d

Likelihood of neighborhood desegregation .036

T h r e a t o f economic competition

Like l ihood o f black superv i so rLike l ihood of being affected by a f f i r m a t i ve action

-.121.209**

Threat o f bus ing

L ik e l ih ood o f b us ing blacks in (A)Like l ihood o f b us ing w h i t e s ou t (B)H a v e e l e m e n t a r y school c h i l d r e n (X )H a v e high school c h i l d r e n (Y )( A X X )( B X X )( A X Y )( B X Y )

R2

. 271*-.169

.039-.086-.198

.173

.035-.103

.049*

.083

.110-.074-.050-.042-.046

.080-.283**

.030*

Note. T h e e n t r y is / 3 , th e standardized regression coeff icient. A positive beta means that greater vu l n e rab i l i t y goeswith greater symbolic racism. N = 238. R

2is adjusted for number of independent variables included in the equation.

* p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

Our findings consistently support the sym-bolic racism hypothesis, w h i c h is associatedw i t h th e sociocultural perspective o n preju-dice, at the expense of the racial threat hy-

pothesis, which is drawn f r o m realistic groupconfl ict theory. Racial attitudes were shownto be major determinants of voting behavior

in both mayoral elections w e examined; a n dabstract, moralistic resentments o f blacks—

what w e have called symbolic racism—

proved to be the overriding determinant of

v o t i n g , fo r whites shielded f r o m possible tan-gible threats posed by blacks a s wel l as fo rthose in more imminent jeopardy.

At the same time, and in direct contra-

diction o f realistic group confl ic t theory, d i-rect racial threats to whites' private livesw e r e largely irrelevant, either in accountingfo r racially relevant political choices or inproducing symbolic racism. We went to con-siderable pains to measure carefully the

threats blacks might pose to whites in severaldomains: neighborhood desegregation and

social contact, economic competition, school

desegregation, and crime and violence. We

included both subjective measures o f threat(e.g., the judgment that racial busing was

about to be implemented in neighborhoodschools) and objective measures (e.g., havingchildren in the Los Angeles school system

w ho could be bused). Nevertheless, we couldu n c o v e r little evidence that threat affectedvoting behavior or generated more symbolic

racism. Nor did we find support for the pre-dicted expectancy-value interactions: Sub-urbanites' affective reactions to threat did

not produce more antiblack voting when the

threats were more likely to materialize. Nor,finally, d id personal vulnerability to threat

i n tens i fy o r polarize symbolic forms o f prej-udice. By our analysis, the political conse-

quences of racial prejudice are carried by

symbolic resentments, not by tangible threats.What methodological problems might vi-

tiate these conclusions? We assessed sym-bolic racism with multiple-item scales, and

racial threat with individual items. It is con-ce ivab le that symbolic racism is thereforemore powerful than racial threat just be-

cause of its greater consequent variability



428 D O N A L D R. K I N D E R A N D D A V I D O . S E A R S

a n d perha ps grea te r re l iab i l i ty as we l l . Ho w-ever , there a re good reason s fo r a d op t ing th i sprocedure . It w o u l d be c o n c e p t u a ll y i n a p -p rop r i a t e to opera t iona l ize rac ia l th rea t a s

a s ingle , in te rna l ly cons is ten t scale. T h e v a r -ious rac ia l th rea t i tems represent a collectionof qui te separa te respondent cha rac te r is t ics .T h e a pprop r i a te wa y , then , to dea l wi th th erac ia l th rea t ind ica tors is to t rea t them sep-a r a t e l y in es t imat ion but to pool the i r i nd i -v i d u a l c on t r ibu t ions fo r c o m p a r a t i v e p u r -poses, as w e h a v e d o n e in the bo t tom o fTable 3. Second, our mos t pointed ana lyseso f th e r a c ia l t h r e a t hypo the s i s f e a tu r e in t e r -

ac t ions be tween appropr ia te ly pa i red affecta nd v u l ne r a b i l i ty mea su re s ( see T a b l e 4 ) .Such ana lys is can on ly be done by t rea t ingthe th r e a t mea su re s sepa r a t e l y r a th e r tha ng r o u p i n g t hem in to a scale.

In any case, w e a r e conf iden t th is proce-dure does n o t a c c oun t for the ma in r e su l t sof the s t u d y fo r severa l reasons . B oth sym -bol ic r a ci sm a n d r a c ia l t h r e a t w e re a na l yzedas i nd iv id u a l i te ms rather t h a n scales in pre-l i m i n a r y repor ts of the 1969 d a t a (Sears

& K i n d e r , 1 9 7 1 , N ote 1), and the s u b s t a n -t ive r e su l t s we re id en t ic a l to those repor tedh e r e , t h o u g h n o t a s ec onomic a l l y r ep re -sen ted . T hen , a f t e r f i n d in g (t o o u r s u r p r i s e )t h a t symb ol ic rac ism dom ina ted rac ia l th rea tin th e 1969 d a t a , w e su bs t a n t i a l l y bo l s te r edth e m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h r e a t in the 1 9 7 3 s u r -vey . I m p r o v i n g th e m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h r e a tnever the less l eads to essen t ia l ly the samedisappoin t ing re turn fo r the racial t h r e a thypo thes is . T h e grea te r v a r i a b i l i t y of thesymbol ic rac ism sca les might indeed g ivet h em more s ta t i s t ica l power , b u t w e t ook th ep r ecau t i o n o f a n a l y z i n g t h e m a ls o a s t r i -c ho tomiz ed va r i a b l e s , an d th e r e su l t s we reiden t ica l . F i n a l l y , th e mos t sens i ti ve a n a l yse sof rac ia l th rea t (Tab les 4 and 5) show itc o m i n g o u t o v e r w h e l m i n g l y in the direc t ionco u n te r t o hypo the s i s ; sc a l ing r a c i a l t h r e a tw o u l d n o t r e ve rse th i s s i t ua t ion .

Generality o f Results

O u r m a i n c o n c l u s i o n is s t r e n g t h e n e d byth e cons is tency of our f indings , even ove r ava r i e t y o f tests an d measures, across two in-dependent replications 4 years apart and

d u r i n g a pe r iod of sha rp po l i t ica l change .

Bu t to d r a w i m p l i ca t io n s fo r genera l theor ieso f rac ia l pre judice—for the f a i l u r e o f rea l -i s tic gro up conf l ic t theo ry and fo r the successo f th e soc ioc u l tu r a l pe r spec t i ve— d ema nd s

cons idera t ion o f ex te rna l va l id i ty . H o w c a u-t ious shou l d we be in ex t r a po l a t ing f r omthese resu l t s to o the r se t t ings and popula -t ions?

W e bel ieve first of al l t h a t th e p a t t e r n o ff i n d in g s r o u g h l y r ep re sen t s wha t wou l d bef o u n d in Amer ic a n subu rbs gene r a l l y , s inc ed emogra ph ic a l l y o u r respondents resembledsubu rba n i t e s throughout th e count ry . B u tg en e r a l i z i n g b e y o n d s u b u r b a n A m e r i c a is

more r i sky . Accord ing to the i r re t rospec t ivej u d g m e n t s , o u r r e spond en t s h a d b e h a v e dpol i t i ca l ly qui te l ike Ca l i forn ia vo te rs a s aw h o l e in recent e lections, an d the i r rac ia la t t i t ud e s we re s im i l a r t o those hel d by no r th -e rn wh i t e s m o r e g e n e r a l l y a t the t i m e ( G r e e -ley & Shea t s ley , 19 71 ; Sea r s & K i n d e r ,1 9 7 1 ) . Stil l , in e x p l o r i n g r a c i sm in s u b u r b i ar a t h e r t h a n in an a r e a w h e r e ta n g i b l e r a c i a lconflict is more in tense , w e m a y have sys-t em a t i c a l l y u n d e r e s t i m a t e d th e effects o f

r a c i a l t h r e a t . Pe rha ps symbo l ic r a c i sm , w i thits o v e r t o n e s o f d i s in te r e s t ed m o r a l i t y , is thel u x u r y o f t hose n o t p e r s o n a l l y t h r e a t e n e d .Of c o u r s e l a r g e n u m b e r s of ou r s u b u r b a nr e sp o n den t s d id pe rce ive themse l v e s as be ingdi rec t ly t h r e a t e n e d by b l a c ks , a n d theset h r e a t s h a d n o d i sc e rn ib l e imp a c t (T a b le s 3-6). Nor did sym bo l ic r a c i sm f lour i sh o n l y inth e absence o f t h r e a t ( T a b l e 5).

Fur the rmore , r a c i a l threat h a s failed to

h a v e a s ign i f ican t e f fect in other research w eare a w a r e of as wel l , al l of it c en te r ing o nconflict over rac ia l bus ing . For example , op-posi t ion to rac ia l bus ing has proved to belargely irrelevant to measures of the personal

impa c t o f busing , such as h a v i n g p u b l i cschool chi ld ren l iv ing in an area w h e r e b u s -in g h a d a l r e a d y been imp l emen ted o r w a s

promised to be imp l em en ted soon , th e l engthof the bus r ide , or the racia l composit ion o fth e host school (Gatl in , Giles , & Cata ldo ,

1978 ; Sears, Hens l e r , & Speer, 1979 ; Sears,L a u , T yl e r , & Al l en , 1980 ; M c C o n a h a y &H a w l e y , N ote 2 ) . One exc ep t ion is tha t pa r -en t s i n L o s Ange l e s , j u s t be fo re t h e an -nounc emen t o f a long-awaited desegregation

p l an , were som ew ha t mo re opposed to b u s i n g



PREJUDICE AND POLITICS 429

t h a n n o n - p a r e n t s o r those in adjacen t u n -affected school dis t r icts (Allen & Sears ,N o te 3). Never the less , in th i s and a l l theseother s tudies , prejudice was the m a j o r de-

te rm inan t o f an t ibus in g a t t i tude s . These re-sul ts corroborate ou r own a nd ex t en d , ifsuggest ively , thei r general i ty .

Another objec t ion a rgues fo r m o r e p r u -den t , cau t ious genera l i za t ion . Perhaps raceinvi tes symbolic thinking among suburban-i t es because they have v i r tua l ly n o f r iendlypersonal contact w i t h blacks . In the subur-ban world, there is s imply no personal ex-perience with b l acks t ha t m i gh t offset ou t -da ted rac ia l and mora l soc ia l i za t ion . Thereis n o question t h a t suburban i tes in our sam-ples had l i t t le di rect contact w i t h blacks , asindicated earl ier . The degree of racial i so-lation an d lack o f direct in ter racia l contactfor wh i te su bu rban i t e s is s t r ik i n g . Ho wev e r ,racial i so lat ion is hardly l imited to the sub-urb. Friendly social encounters betweenraces a re ra re even in in tegra ted ne ighbor-ho ods. Acco rd in g t o B ra db u r n , S u dm an , an dGockel's ( 1 9 7 1 ) s u r v e y , j u s t 1% of whi tes

l iving in subs tan t i a l ly in tegra ted ne ighbor-hoods reported going out for dinner or to amovie with blacks in the preceding severalm o n t h s ; less t h a n a t h i r d (32%) sa id tha tan yo n e in the i r f ami ly ha d ever s topped tot a lk w i th b lack n e ighbors wh en they m et onthe street . Racial isolation is one of thedefining characteris t ics of co n t em po ra ryAmerican socia l life. W h e t h e r o r no t s ym -bolic racism would remain the pol i t ical lypo ten t form of racial prejudice with higher

levels of in terracial contact cannot be an-swered with o u r da t a .

Symbolic Politics

Our f i nd ings imply tha t th e white publ ic ' spolit ical response to racial issues is based onm o ra l a n d symbolic chal lenges to the racialstatus quo in society generally rather thanon any d i rect , t an g ib le cha l lenge to the i r ownpersonal l ives . The pol i t ical problems withbusing d o no t arise merely f rom whiteswhose chi ldren a re th rea tened wi th bus ing .Resistance to bu s i n g ma y be a s in tense asit is in part because it conjures up imagesth roughou t the whi te popu la t ion o f innocen twhi te chi ldren being sent fa r f rom thei r safe

w h i t e neighborhoods in to schoo ls j ammedwi th academica l ly unmot iva ted , d i so rder ly ,dangerous blacks . Similar ly , opposi t ion toaf f i rmat ive act ion may not come dispropor-

t iona te ly f rom those whose ow n careers arein jeopardy. The pol i t ical problems sur-ro u n d i n g af f i rmat ive act ion may be t racedin pa r t to popu lar images o f h a r d w o r k i n gw h i t e s be i n g u n f a i r l y displaced by u n d e -serving an d underqua l i f ied blacks. Thepoli t ical ly i m p o r t a n t c o m p o n e n t o f p re j u -dice—symbol ic rac i sm—is c o m p a r t m e n -tal ized away from th e personal impact ofrac ia l conflicts .

Such "psychic segregation" n o t on ly ho ldsfo r symbolic racism, bu t also shows up a s abroader d i s t inc t ion made by these subur-ban i tes be tween the q ua l i ty o f the i r persona llife on the one han d and the quality of na-t iona l life on the o ther . Mos t o f ou r respon-dents seemed qui te sat isfied with thei rpersonal l ives—with their communit ies ,neighborhood schools , economic progress ,an d sa fe ty— ye t in each domain , they ex-pressed considerable pess imism about the

broader society . Fo r example , whereas mos tin our samples were opt imist ic about thei row n economic futures and qui te sat isfiedwi th the i r o w n recent gains, a m aj o r i t yagreed that "the condi t ion of the averagem an is get t ing worse, n o t better" (see A n -d rews & Withey, 1976, for s imilar f indingsbased on na t iona l su rveys ) . Moreover , whatpersona l d iscon ten t subu rban i tes d id expressseemed no t to sp il l over in to the i r jud gm entsabout society. Concern about personal safety,

fo r ins tance, had vi r tual ly no implicat ionsfo r subu rban i tes ' broader v iews on crime.Those w ho believed that crime was on ther ise in thei r own neighborhood were not , asa consequence, a n y more en thus ias t ic abou ta n u m b e r o f "law and order" policies suchas the death pena l ty an d restrictions o n bai lor a ny m ore l ikely to . th in k th at s t reets inAmer ica were no longer safe. Personal fearsan d f ru s t r a t i o n s , ho wev e r i m po r t an t an dpreoccupying they ma y be , seemed not toaffect their broader social attitudes.

Addi t iona l suppor t fo r t h i s a r g u m e n t isprovided by a n u m b e r o f recent invest iga-tions. W e have already referred to the re-search on racial busing, which consis tent lydem ons t ra tes tha t oppos i tion to bus ing s tems



430 D O N A L D R. K I N D E R AND D A V I D O. SEARS

l a rge ly f rom longs tand ing pol i t ica l an d r a -c ia l va lues and tha t the pe rsona l impac t ofbus ing is of far less s ignif ican ce. The f a i l u r eof person a l concerns an d d i sc on ten t s to t a ke

on poli t ica l s ignif icance has been d emon-s t ra ted in severa l other contexts as well: ina t t i t ud e s t ow a r d the V ie tna m w a r (La u ,B r o w n , & Sears, 1 9 7 8 ) , in publ ic responseto the energy crisis (Sears , Tyle r , Ci t r in ,& Kinder , 1978) , and in the po l i t ica l con-sequences o f ec onomic d i sc on ten t (K ind e r ,in press ; Kinder & Kiewie t , 1979 , Note 4).In ea ch c ase, jud g m en t s a bo u t t he na t i ona lcondi t ion w e r e l a r g e l y a u t o n o m o u s f rompe r s o n a l exper iences a n d pr ed ic a men t s , a n deach time i t was the more genera l form ofdisconten t , no t the pe rsona l , tha t inf luencedpoli t ical prefe rence .

One recent s tudy provides an in te res t ingcounterexample. Self- interest d id seem toinf luence Ca l i f o r n i a ns ' a t t i t ud e s t ow a r dProposi t ion 13, t he p r ope r ty ta x r e f e r end um ,in 1978 (Sears , Note 5). O w n i n g a h o m e an dn o t h a v i n g a g o v e r n m e n t jo b both were re-la ted to grea te r suppor t fo r Propos i t ion 13;

yet even in th i s case, where se l f - in te res tseemed so clear ly l in ked to a po li t ica l choice ,th e impa c t o f sym bol ic pred ic tor s o n s u p p o r tfo r Proposi t ion 13 was ve r y g r ea t . So, al-t h o u g h i t seems un l ike ly tha t a t t i tudes nev erserve an instrumenta l funct ion, i t is possibletha t they do so mor e r a r e ly t ha n is usua l l yassumed o r und e r on ly spec i a l c i r c um-stances.

In sho r t , unha pp ine s s with A mer ic a n so -ciety appears to be l a r ge ly u n r e l a t ed to per -

sona l discontents . The st resses and st ra insof pr i va t e life are insu la ted f rom poli t ica land social malaise. W hy th i s is s o —why th econcrete realities of people 's everyday l ivesare so c o m p a r t m e n t a l i z e d a w a y f rom the i rj u d g m e n t s a b o u t the society as a who le—i sa compl ica ted but resea rchab le ques t ion . Inp u r s u i n g i t we h o p e to l e a rn m o r e a b o u t thepar t icu la r case exam ined here : why sym bol icr e sen tmen t s ha ve a mor e s a l i en t inf luence

t h a n tangible threats on whites ' poli t ica l re-sponses to racia l conflict.

Reference Notes

1 . Sears, D . O., & Ki nd er , D . R . The "good life," whiteracism, and the Los Angeles voter. Paper presented

a t the a n n u a l m e e ti n g of the Western PsychologicalAssociation, Los Angeles, April 1970.

2. M c C o n a h a y , J. B., & Ha wley , W . D . Is it the buses

or th e blacks'! Paper presented at the 85 t h a nnua lm ee t i ng of the A m erican Psychological Associat ion,

San Francisco, Augus t 1977 .3. A l l en , H. M., Jr . , & Sears, D. O. White opposition

to busing in Los Angeles: Is self-interest rejuve-nated"! Paper presented at the 86 t h a nnua l m ee t i ngof th e American Psychological Associat ion, Toronto,Augus t 1978 .

4. K i n d e r , D . R., & Kiewie t , D . R . Sociotropic politics.

Unpubl i shed manuscr ip t , Ya le Univers i ty , 1979.5. Sears, D. O. The Jarvis Amendment : Self-interest, or symb olic polit ics. Paper presented at the 86th

a n n u a l m eet i ng of the American Psychological A s-sociat ion, Toronto, Augus t 1978 .

References

Al lpo r t , G . W . T he nature o f prejudice. N ew Y o r k :Doub leda y , 1954 .

A n d r e w s , F. M., & Withey , S. B. Social indicators ofwell-being. N ew York: P lenum, 1976.

As hm or e , R. D. Prejudice: Causes and cures. In B. E .Col l ins (Ed.), Social Psychology. Reading , Mass.:

Addison-Wesley , 1970.A s h m o r e , R. D., & DelBoca , F. K. Psychological ap -

proaches to unders tanding in tergroup conf l ic t . InP . A . K a t z (Ed.), Towards th e elimination o f racism.

N ew Y o r k : Pergamon Press, 1976.Bla lock , H . M., J r . Toward a theory of mino rity-group

relations. N ew York: Wi ley , 1967.B r a d b u r n , N. M., S u d m a n , S., & Gockel, G. L. Side

by side: integrated neighborhoods in America. Chi-cago: Quadrangle Books , 1971 .

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. Appl ied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hills-da le , N.J . : Er lbaum, 1975.

Edwards , W . T h e t heo r y o f decis ion-making . Psycho-logical Bulletin, 1954, 51, 380-417.

Ehr l ich , H. J . T he social psychology of prejudice. N ewYork: Wi ley , 1973.

Fishbein , M., & Aj zen , I. Belief, attitude, intention,an dbehavior. Reading , Mass.: Addison-Wesley , 1975.

Ga t l i n , D. S., Giles, M. W., & Cataldo, E. F. Policysuppor t wi th in a t a rget g roup: T he case o f school de-segregation. American Political Science Review, 1978,72 , 985-995.

Greeley , A . M ., & Sheatsley, P. B. Att i tudes towardrac ia l in tegra t ion . Scientific American, 1971 , 223,13-19.

K atz , P . A . Racism and soc ia l science: Towa r ds a newc o m m i t m e n t . I n P . A . K a t z (Ed.), Towards th e elim-

ination of racism. N e w Y o r k : Pergamon Press, 1976.K e y , V. O., Jr. Southern politics. New Yor k : Ra ndom

House, 1949.K i n d e r , D. R. Pres idents , prosperi ty, an d public opinion.

Public Opinion Quarterly, in press.

K i n d e r , D . R., & Kiewiet , D. R . Economic grievancesand pol i t ica l behav ior : The ro le of co l lec t ive d i scon-t en t s a nd s ym bo l i c j udg m e n t s i n c ong res si onal v o t i ng .American Journal o f Political Science, 1979 , 23,495-527.



P R E J U D I C E A N D POLITICS 431

L a u , R. R., B r o w n , T. A. , & Sears, D . O. Self - in te res tan d c iv i li an s ' a t t i t u d e s t o wa rd the V ie tn am W ar . Pub-lic Opinion Quarterly, 1978 , 42, 464-483.

LeVine , R. A ., & C a m p b e l l , D . T . Ethnocentrism. N ewYork: Wiley, 1972 .

M ayko v ich , M . K . Corre la tes o f racia l pre jud ice . Jour-nal of Personality an d Social Psychology, 1975, 32,1014-1020.

M c C o n a h a y , J. B ., & H o u g h , J . C . , J r . Symbolic racism.Journal o f Social Issues, 1976 , 32, 23-45.

M iddle ton , R. Regiona l d i f fe rences in pre jud ice . Amer-

ican Sociological Review, 1976 , 41, 9 4 - 1 1 7 .Pet t igrew, T. F., & C r a m e r , M . R . The d e m o g r a p h y

of desegregation. Journal of Social Issues, 1959, 15 ,61-71.

Sears, D . O., Hensle r , C. P., & Speer , L. K . Whi te s 'opposit ion to "bus ing" : Self - in te res t o r sy mbolic po l-itics? Amer i can Poli tical Science Review, 1979 , 73 ,

369-384.Sears , D . O., & K i n d e r , D. R. Racia l t e n s io n s and vo t i n gin L o s Angeles. In W. Z. Hi r s c h (Ed . ) , Los Angeles:Viability an d prospects fo r metropoli tan leadership.N ew Yo rk : Praeger , 1 9 7 1 .

Sears , D . O., L au , R. R., Tyle r , T., & A l l e n , H . M . ,Jr . Self-interest versus symbolic poli t ics in policy at-

t i t u d e s an d p r e s id en t i a l vo t i n g . Amer i can Poli ticalScience Review, 1980, 74 , 670-684.

Sears, D . O., & M c C o n a h a y , J. B. The politics of vi-olence: The new urban blacks and the Watts Riot.Boston: H o u g h t o n - M i f f l i n , 1973.

Sears, D . O., Tyle r , T . R. , C i t r i n , J ., & K i n d e r , D. R.Political system support an d publ ic response to theenergy crisis. Amer i can Journal of Political Science,1978, 22 , 56-82.

Sherif , M ., H a r v e y , O. J . , Whi t e , B. J . , Ho o d , W . R.,& She r i f , C . W . fntergroup conflict and cooperation:The robber's cave experiment. N o r m a n : Un i ve r s i t yof O klaho m a Bo o k Exchan ge , 1961 .

S u d m a n , S. Applied sampl ing. Chicago: Ald ine , 1976.Tay lo r , D. G. , Sheats ley, P . B., & Gree ley, A . M . A t -

t i tudes toward racia l in tegra t ion . Scientific American,

1978 , 238, 42-49.

Tesser, A . Self -genera ted a t t i tu de change . In L . Be r -

kowi tz (Ed . ) , Advances in experimental social psy-chology ( Vo l . 1 1 ) . N ew York: Academic Press , 1978 .Wo n n aco t t , R. J., & W o n n a c o t t , T. H . Econ ometr i c s .

N ew Yo rk: Wi le y , 1970 .

Received J u l y 7, 1979

Rev i s io n received J u l y 24, 1980 •

Documents

Prejudice and Politics Symbolic Racism Versus Racial Threats to the Good Life