Lay Theories About White Racists: What Constitutes Racism ... Files...contemporary social mores....

Group Processes &Intergroup Relations

2006 Vol 9(1) 117–138

GPIR

Lay Theories About WhiteRacists: What ConstitutesRacism (and WhatDoesn’t)

Samuel R. SommersTufts University

Michael I. NortonHarvard Business School

Psychological theories of racial bias assume a pervasive motivation to avoid appearing racist, yetresearchers know little regarding laypeople’s theories about what constitutes racism. Byinvestigating lay theories of White racism across both college and community samples, we seekto develop a more complete understanding of the nature of race-related norms, motivations,and processes of social perception in the contemporary United States. Factor analyses inStudies 1 and 1a indicated three factors underlying the traits laypeople associate with Whiteracism: evaluative, psychological, and demographic. Studies 2 and 2a revealed a three-factor solutionfor behaviors associated with White racism: discomfort/unfamiliarity, overt racism, and denial ofproblem. For both traits and behaviors, lay theories varied by participants’ race and their race-related attitudes and motivations. Specifically, support emerged for the prediction that laytheories of racism reflect a desire to distance the self from any aspect of the category ‘racist’.

keywords distancing, intergroup relations, lay theories, modern racism, racialattitudes, social perception, stereotyping

Even though it might appear otherwise from whatI’ve said, I am not a racist. ( John Rocker, ‘Rockerapologizes’, 1999)

ON E would hesitate before calling JohnRocker—the baseball pitcher whose offensiveremarks about immigrants and various racialgroups were published in Sports Illustratedseveral years ago—an astute commentator oncontemporary social mores. However, his quo-tation above suggests three conclusions regard-ing lay theories of White racism in the UnitedStates, all of which are explored in the present

investigation. First, by claiming that his actionsdo not reflect his beliefs, Rocker’s statementdemonstrates the ambiguity and subjectivity ofdeterminations of racism. Second, his quota-tion clearly indicates that Rocker, despitehaving previously voiced negative sentiment

Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)9:1; 117–138; DOI: 10.1177/1368430206059881

Author’s noteAddress correspondence to Samuel R.Sommers, Tufts University, Department ofPsychology, 490 Boston Avenue, Medford, MA02155, USA [email: [email protected]]

toward members of certain racial groups,wishes to distance himself from the label‘racist’. Third, Rocker’s comments indicate anawareness that the general public associatescertain behaviors and characteristics withracism; he knows that in light of his publishedremarks, many will view him as a member ofthis category ‘racist.’

On these first two observations, psychologistshave written volumes. The subjectivity of deter-minations of racism has been conveyed, forexample, by studies of attributional ambiguity(e.g. Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, & Major, 1991).Debate over the measurement and nature ofracial bias (see Banaji, Nosek, & Green, 2004;Biernat & Crandall, 1999; Karpinski & Hilton,2001) further illustrates the complexities sur-rounding attempts to study racism. As for thesecond point—Rocker’s desire to avoid thelabel ‘racist’—numerous researchers havedemonstrated that contemporary Whites areoften influenced by the motivation to appearnonprejudiced (e.g. Dunton & Fazio, 1997;Fein, Morgan, Norton, & Sommers, 1997;Norton, Vandello, & Darley, 2004; Plant &Devine, 1998).

But on the third observation above, thatthere are specific characteristics and behaviorsthat laypeople associate with White racism, psy-chologists have not commented extensively. Inthis article, we investigate lay theories of Whiteracism by addressing basic questions includingthe following: What is the nature of lay theoriesof racism? Do these theories vary acrosssamples? What motivational processes affect thecontent of these theories, and what individualdifferences correlate with them? By adopting alay theories perspective on White racism, thepresent research attempts to achieve a morecomplete understanding of the salient beliefs,norms, and motivations that impact interracialperceptions and intergroup relations ineveryday life.

Why study lay theories of racism?

Many psychological theories of racism grow outof the assumption that individuals are moti-vated by a desire to be, or at least appear to be

nonprejudiced (Devine, 1989; Gaertner &Dovidio, 1986; Kinder & Sears, 1981). In fact, asalluded to in the opening to this article, fewsocial categories in this day and age seem to beas aversive as that of ‘racist’ (Crandall,Eshelman, & O’Brien, 2002). Nonetheless, psy-chologists have only a superficial understand-ing of this category that so many individuals arepurportedly trying to avoid at all costs. Webelieve that approaching racism from a laytheories perspective is likely to be fruitful in theeffort to develop a deeper understanding of thebehaviors and characteristics that lead to con-troversy and intergroup conflict in contempor-ary society. The concept of the lay theory hasbeen defined as an ‘organized knowledge struc-ture that directs behavior, judgments, andevaluations’ (Cameron, Alvarez, Ruble, &Fuligni, 2001, p. 118), suggesting that an exam-ination of lay theories of White racism willprovide a more complete picture of the natureand antecedents of contemporary prejudiceand discrimination.

The present investigation continues therecent movement in the literature towards afuller consideration of racism. Historically,research on stereotyping and prejudice hasfocused on the attitudes, motivations, andbehavior of perceivers. That is, studies typicallyexamine how people think about and act towardmembers of stigmatized groups. More recently,though, psychologists have begun to examinethe experiences and perceptions of targets (e.g.Landrine & Klonoff, 1996; Shelton, 2000; Swim,Cohen, & Hyers, 1998). By breaking from thetraditional perspective on the perceiver/targetdichotomy, these studies contribute to a richerunderstanding of racism. We hope toaccomplish a similar goal by turning theseproverbial tables once more. The presentstudies place biased perceivers in the role oftargets, exploring the characteristics and behav-iors typically associated with them. In doing so,this investigation will shed light on the factorsthat influence determinations of racism and thespecific ways in which people attempt to presentthemselves as nonprejudiced.

Beyond the domain of racism, this line ofinquiry also contributes to the general lay

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(1)

118

theories approach in psychology. Research onthe role of lay theories in social perceptionsuggests that the purposes of such theorizinginclude the effort to make sense of complicatedinformation and construct a meaningful socialreality (e.g. Hong, Levy, & Chiu, 2001; Levy,Plaks, Hong, Chiu, & Dweck, 2001; Lickel,Hamilton, & Sherman, 2001). Certainly, thesefunctions are served by lay theories aboutWhite racism, but we suggest an importantcaveat: Based on contemporary psychologicaltheories—and spelled out in more detailbelow—we suggest that lay theories of racismserve to create a social reality that is informa-tive, but also nonthreatening. Because of theuniquely polarizing and controversial nature ofideas about race, we propose that people’stheories of racism tend to be constructed inways that allow them to maintain a safe distancefrom any appearance of personal bias. In thisrespect, the present investigation has the poten-tial to broaden the scope of our understandingand expectations regarding the function of laytheories in social perception and intergrouprelations.

Content of lay theories of racism

Psychologists know few specifics about laytheories of racism, but one conclusion ofprevious research is that White-on-Black dis-crimination is considered to be the prototypicalform of racial bias (Inman & Baron, 1996;Rodin, Price, Bryson, & Sanchez, 1990). In lightof this result, we focused the present researchon lay theories regarding White racism, and inparticular, on the traits and behaviors peopleassociate with White racists. With respect totraits, one possibility is that lay theories reflectactual correlates of racial bias, such as authori-tarianism, impulsivity, and indifference to socialnorms (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson,& Sanford, 1950; Gough & Bradley, 1993). Therecent distinction drawn by psychologistsbetween ‘old-fashioned’ racism and a modern,subtle form of bias also suggests possibilities forthe content of lay theories regarding racism.Traits epitomizing the concept of old-fashionedracism could include ‘aggressive’ or ‘violent’, or

demographics such as ‘red-necked’ or‘Southern’. That modern racists can act non-prejudiced while still harboring biased beliefscould lead to trait associations such as ‘devious’or ‘dishonest’.

This distinction between old-fashioned andmodern racism may also be apparent inpeople’s theories about behaviors typical ofWhite racists. Old-fashioned behaviors couldinclude violence toward a person because ofrace or use of racial epithets in conversation.Behaviors typical of a modern racist couldinclude opposing affirmative action or feelinguncomfortable around people of another race.Yet another possibility is that, just as psycholo-gists distinguish between prejudice, discrimi-nation, and stereotyping, lay theories aboutracist behaviors will be marked by distinctionsbetween affect, overt acts, and cognition. Insum, there are multiple plausible predictionsfor the specific content of lay theories ofracism, an empirical question that has not beenexplored previously by psychologists.

Racial differences in lay theories

Determinations of racism are subjective, andtherefore a thorough exploration of laytheories also requires examination of the ide-ologies, motivations, and demographics corre-lated with race-related judgments (see Khan &Lambert, 2001). Therefore, another goal of thepresent studies was to identify individual differ-ences that predict lay theories of racism. Weexpect that, on average, White and non-Whiteparticipants tend to endorse different aspects oflay theories regarding White racism. Given thatnon-White individuals are more likely to haveexperienced racial prejudice, they may holdstronger negative attitudes toward racists andbe more likely than Whites to label ambiguousbehaviors as indicative of racism. Empiricalevidence of between-race differences in racialattitudes and judgments supports this predic-tion (e.g. Johnson, Simmons, Trawalter,Ferguson, & Reed, 2003; Monteith & Spicer,2000; Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000). Not onlywould such between-race differences be oftheoretical interest, but they would also have

Sommers & Norton lay theories of racism

119

real-world applications for attempts to predictand reconcile social conflict borne from allega-tions of racism.

Racial differences such as these may signifymore than differential sensitivity to racismamong Whites and non-Whites; such effectscould also indicate self-protective concerns onthe part of White participants. Previousresearch has demonstrated that people aremotivated to distance their own attitudes andpersonalities from those belonging to membersof undesirable social categories (Hodson &Esses, 2002; Schimel, Pyszczynski, Greenberg,O’Mahen, & Arndt, 2000). For example, Wood,Pool, Leck, and Purvis (1996) found that par-ticipants modified their own attitudes whenthey believed them to be shared by members ofthe Ku Klux Klan. Thus, between-race differ-ences in theorizing about racism may alsoindicate the extent to which Whites are moti-vated to avoid classifying themselves as racists.Few contemporary social categories are asundesirable as that of ‘racist’, and Whites’concerns about self-classifying as such mightlead to narrower, less inclusive conceptualiza-tions of racism.

Psychological predictors of laytheories

In order to examine this variability in howpeople theorize about racism and to test ourself-distancing hypothesis, the present investi-gation includes measures of participants’ racialattitudes and race-related motivations. Perhapsthe most frequently used measure of explicitracial attitudes is the Modern Racism Scale(MRS; McConahay, 1986), which assessesbeliefs associated with subtle forms of racism.We expected that the relationship between theMRS and lay theories about White racism wouldbe strongest for ratings of the specific traits andbehaviors that high-MRS individuals themselvesare likely to exhibit. More precisely, high-MRSparticipants were expected to be particularlyunlikely to theorize about White racism usingthose ideological characteristics or ambiguouslybiased behaviors that are traditionally associ-ated with their own race-related value systems

and political beliefs. By conceptualizing racismmore narrowly as an overt, blatant set ofresponses, high-MRS individuals can assert toothers—and themselves—that they do notbelong to this aversive category.

We also included measures of race-relatedmotivations. Plant and Devine (1998) describehigh scores on their Internal Motivation torespond without prejudice Scale (IMS) asderiving from personal beliefs that bias iswrong. We expected this belief system topredict endorsement of the theory that racismresults from intrinsic factors. Specifically, webelieved that high-IMS individuals would associ-ate ideological and psychological characteristicswith White racism, and would demonstrate apropensity for inferring racism from ambigu-ous behaviors. Absent additional insight into aactor’s intentions, high-IMS participants shouldbe likely to assume, for example, that a Whiteperson who tells racist jokes does so because ofracist beliefs, or that a White who only datesWhites harbors a racial preference. In sum, wepredicted that high-IMS individuals, whose ownperceptions and actions are influenced byinternal values, would focus on intrinsic causesin theorizing about the race-related behavior ofothers.

Conversely, people who score high on theExternal Motivation Scale (EMS) seek to avoidracial bias because of extrinsic pressures such aspolitical correctness and fear of reprisal (Plant& Devine, 1998). Therefore, we expected high-EMS individuals to focus less on internal causesof racial bias and to be more sensitive to situa-tional determinants of racism. As opposed to anideological or psychological basis for Whiteracism, high-EMS individuals were expected toendorse a more external, superficial conceptu-alization. For example, we expected that high-EMS participants would depict racists indemographic terms and would be relativelyunlikely to perceive ambiguous behaviors asindicative of racism. Because of their height-ened awareness of the situational determinantsof race-related behavior, high-EMS individualsshould be likely to conclude, for instance, thatsomeone who tells racist jokes is succumbing tosocial pressure, or that a White who only dates


120

other Whites simply lives in a homogeneouscommunity. In other words, we expected thesame sensitivity to external factors that marksthe race-related behavior of high-EMS indi-viduals to color their theories about racial biasin general.

Overview of the present investigation

This research was designed with three objectives:(1) to identify the specific traits and behaviorsthat comprise lay theories of White racism; (2)to identify reliable factor structures underlyingthese theories; (3) to measure the associationsbetween these factors and individual differ-ences such as race, racial attitudes, and race-related motivations. In Study 1, we examine thespecific content of lay theories about racisttraits and use exploratory factor analysis toidentify the structure underlying these theories.In Study 2, we examine lay theories regardingracist behaviors in the same manner. In both ofthese investigations, regression analyses assessthe relationship between race-related individ-ual differences (i.e. participant race; MRS, IMS,EMS scores) and participants’ theories aboutWhite racists (i.e. factor scores). Studies 1a and2a replicate the factor structures of Studies 1and 2 using noncollege-student samples.

Study 1

MethodTrait generation We initially asked 21 collegestudents to provide up to five responses to thefollowing question: ‘Think about the category“White racist”. What traits or characteristics doyou associate with it?’ A list of 48 descriptors,each of which had been listed by three or moreparticipants, was shown to judges blind to theobjectives of the study for the purpose of com-bining redundant items. Contradictory items(e.g. ‘intelligent’ and ‘unintelligent’) were leftunchanged. This process generated a final listof 40 items (see Table 1).

Participants A total of 229 undergraduatepsychology students at two Universities in the

Northeast US completed the final questionnairein mass testing sessions in exchange for coursecredit or as part of a classroom exercise. Ofthese participants, 161 (70.3%) identified asWhite, 21 (9.2%) as Black, 27 (11.8%) as Asian,19 (8.3%) were distributed across other racialcategories, and 1 (0.4%) did not indicate race;1

109 participants (47.6%) were female, 119(52.0%) were male, and 1 (0.4%) did notindicate gender.

Materials The final questionnaire consistedof two sections. The trait section began withthe following instructions: ‘Think about thefollowing category: ‘racist White people’.Please use the scale below to respond to thestatements that follow’. A 21-point scale wasprovided (1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 11 =‘neutral’, 21 = ‘strongly agree’) and the 40traits followed in random order, each precededby the phrase ‘Racists tend to be . . .’. The othersection assessed participants’ race, racial atti-tudes, and race-related motivations. Six itemsfrom the MRS (McConahay, 1986) wereincluded; the item pertaining to school inte-gration was deleted because pretesting indi-cated that participants were largely unfamiliarwith this issue. We also included Plant andDevine’s (1998) Internal/ External Motivationto respond without prejudice Scales. The IMSconsists of five items (e.g. ‘I attempt to act innonprejudiced ways toward Black peoplebecause it is personally important to me’), asdoes the EMS (e.g. ‘I try to hide any negativethoughts about Black people in order to avoidnegative reactions from others’).

The order of the trait and individual differ-ence sections of the questionnaire was counter-balanced. Scores for the factors describedbelow, the MRS, and the IMS did not differ byquestionnaire order (ts (224) < 1.20, ns). Anorder effect for EMS scores—which werehigher in the trait-first than in the trait-secondcondition—appeared to result from differentproportions of non-White participants in thetwo order conditions. Analyzing only theresponses of Whites revealed no order effect forthe EMS (t(158) < 1).


121


122

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for racist traits in Studies 1 and 1a

Study 1 Study 1a

Trait M SD M SD

closed-minded 18.97 3.02 17.86 4.52stubborn 17.69 3.23 16.52 4.24opinionated 17.31 4.16 16.97 4.54ignorant 16.08 4.41 15.61 5.59fearful of change 15.95 4.05 15.47 4.66hateful 15.47 4.18 15.86 4.75conservative 14.77 4.86 13.22 5.34insecure 14.76 4.67 14.71 4.80insensitive 14.52 4.51 14.33 5.02presumptuous 14.34 4.31 14.72 4.77lacking in empathy 14.34 4.51 13.75 5.32old-fashioned 14.23 4.83 13.89 5.03arrogant 14.13 3.90 13.73 5.32naive 14.04 4.49 13.65 5.47sheltered 13.43 4.14 12.26 5.47selfish 13.00 4.12 12.80 4.87immoral 12.98 4.82 12.33 5.23cruel 12.60 4.40 13.54 5.06Southern 12.51 4.26 11.35 5.39uneducated 12.38 4.47 11.92 5.49excitable 12.37 3.39 12.13 4.54low in self-esteem 12.36 4.56 12.82 5.13aggressive 12.23 3.99 12.71 4.60male 12.00 3.78 10.95 5.17envious 11.92 4.26 11.86 5.14cold 11.84 4.96 12.44 5.07old 11.61 3.90 10.37 4.95unintelligent 11.60 5.08 11.52 5.90religious 11.57 4.11 11.41 4.98violent 11.28 4.38 12.59 4.63unfriendly 11.07 4.37 11.73 4.53serious 11.04 4.01 11.68 4.57devious 10.88 4.05 11.20 4.80self-confident 10.67 4.55 10.43 5.25sneaky 10.34 3.57 10.69 4.50poor 10.21 4.23 10.02 4.71untrustworthy 10.20 4.73 10.93 5.12calm 9.03 3.15 9.34 4.35 intelligent 8.95 3.27 9.82 4.72wealthy 8.79 3.81 9.22 4.55

Notes: Values based on responses to the following statement: ‘Racists tend to be (insert trait here)’. Responseswere made on a scale of 1–21, where 1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 11 = ‘neutral’, and 21 = ‘strongly agree’. N = 229(Study 1); N = 242 (Study 1a).

Results and discussionTrait descriptives Means and standard devia-tions for participants’ ratings of the 40 traititems are presented in Table 1. Comparisonsbetween White and non-White participantsindicated that their responses differed signi-ficantly for six items: ‘arrogant’, ‘devious’,‘opinionated’, ‘sneaky’, ‘untrustworthy’, and‘violent’ (ts(226) > 2.17, ps < .05). In each case,as expected, non-White participants rated theitem as more typical of racists than White par-ticipants did.

Factor analysis Exploratory factor analysis wasperformed on the trait data using principalcomponents extraction and direct quartimin(oblique) rotation. Analysis of the scree plotindicated a three-factor solution (Cattell,1966), accounting for 38.6% of the explainedvariance. This pattern matrix is presented inTable 2, with a loading of .45 used as the cut-offfor interpretation (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).Interfactor correlations were .36 for Factors 1and 2, .16 for Factors 1 and 3, and –.06 forFactors 2 and 3. Factor scores were computedusing the regression method.

Factor 1 accounted for 25.1% of the varianceexplained, with 15 items loading at .45 orhigher. The mean response for these items was12.1 with an average standard deviation of 4.30.These traits range from ‘excitable’ and ‘aggres-sive’ to ‘cold’ and ‘cruel’, but each item reflectsa clearly negative evaluation of racism. Aspectsof both overt, old-fashioned racism and subtle,modern racism can be seen in this factor.Racists are described as ‘violent’ and ‘hateful’,but also as ‘devious’ and ‘untrustworthy’. Thisevaluative factor conveys a negative evaluationof the intellect, morality, and temperament ofracists, essentially comprising a broad stereo-type of the category ‘White racist’.

Factor 2 accounted for 7.6% of the varianceexplained, with six items loading at .45 orhigher. Their average rating was 15.7 with anaverage standard deviation of 4.25, indicatingthat participants believed these traits to bemore typical of racists than the Factor 1 (orFactor 3) traits. The Factor 2 traits do not havea strictly evaluative connotation, but rather

describe psychological or cognitive tendencies ofracists, such as ‘old-fashioned’ and ‘closed-minded’. These traits represent inferencesdrawn about the mental processes and motiva-tions of White racists (e.g. ‘fearful of change,’‘insecure’), and judgments regarding theveracity of racist ideologies (e.g. ‘ignorant,’‘naïve’).

Factor 3 accounted for 5.1% of the varianceexplained, with six items loading at .45 orhigher. The mean response for these items was11.2 with an average standard deviation of 3.78.In general, these traits comprise an extrinsic,demographic depiction of racism, identifyingWhite racists as ‘Southern’, ‘old’, ‘religious’,‘wealthy,’ and ‘sheltered.’ This factor is reminis-cent of the perpetrators of old-fashioned, overtracism or, as Gaertner and Dovidio (1986) havesuggested, ‘red-necked’ racism.

Individual differences For each of the threetrait factors, scores were first regressed on aparticipant race variable (0 = non-White par-ticipant, 1 = White participant). MRS, IMS, andEMS scores were then added to the regressionmodel.2 The combination of Asian, Black,Latino, and other participants into onecategory of ‘non-White’ is an analytic strategywith obvious limitations. Members of differentracial groups have likely had very differentexperiences with racism, and the label ‘non-White’ is not intended to suggest otherwise.However, given the participant population inthe present studies, meaningful analysis byspecific racial group was not possible.Moreover, the present research examines laytheories about White racists, and comparingthe responses of potential ingroup members(e.g. Whites) and outgroup members (e.g. indi-viduals who are not White) is therefore infor-mative. Nonetheless, future investigation usinglarger numbers of participants from a variety ofracial groups is advisable.

The evaluative factor was the only factor forwhich the between-race difference in partici-pant scores approached significance (� = –.12,p = .07). This negative coefficient indicatedthat non-White participants gave marginallyhigher ratings to these items than did Whites,


123

supporting the prediction that non-Whiteswould report a more negative impression of thecategory ‘racist’. When the MRS, IMS, and EMSwere added to the regression model, none of

these individual difference measures emergedas significant predictors of evaluative factorscores (respective �s = –.06, –.01, .06, ps > .44).These Factor 1 traits seem to comprise a broad,


124

Table 2. Pattern matrix factor loadings for traits associated with racism in Study 1

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3Trait (evaluative) (psychological) (demographic)

violent .79 –.03 –.09unfriendly .79 –.14 .07cruel .77 .05 .02aggressive .75 –.01 .11devious .74 –.14 .15excitable .68 –.10 .15cold .66 .01 –.16untrustworthy .66 .06 .02insensitive .63 .13 –.17sneaky .62 –.10 .19serious .61 .07 –.06selfish .52 .19 –.11unintelligent .51 .20 –.02immoral .50 .18 –.07hateful .50 .28 –.07poor .44 –.01 .20arrogant .38 .21 .04presumptuous .37 .25 .06lacking in empathy .36 .27 –.03male .36 –.23 .34envious .33 .28 –.00opinionated .30 .27 –.25

old-fashioned .00 .70 .11fearful of change –.03 .69 –.08ignorant .04 .67 .29insecure .12 .65 –.11naive –.01 .54 .21closed-minded .09 .52 –.16stubborn .22 .43 –.31low in self-esteem .24 .41 –.03conservative .19 .38 .24

sheltered –.06 .46 .54old .05 .07 .49Southern .29 .0 .48wealthy .17 –.08 .48religious .21 .07 .46calm –.24 .07 .46uneducated .30 .34 .38intelligent –.28 –.15 .31self-confident .29 –.30 .31

Notes: N = 229. Factor loadings of .45 and above are in bold.

consensus view of White racists that did notdiffer by the race-related attitudes or motiva-tions assessed in this study.

Unlike the evaluative factor, participant racedid not significantly predict scores for thepsychological factor (� = –.06). However, whenadded to the regression model, both the MRS(� = –.20, p < .01) and IMS (� = .26, p < .001)emerged as significant predictors of thesefactor scores, as expected; the EMS did not(� = .05). The MRS results are consistent withthe prediction that lay theories of racism reflectpeople’s desire to distance themselves from thecategory ‘racist’. High MRS scores were notsimply associated with a general tendency toresist labeling traits as typical of White racists,but rather the negative correlation betweenMRS scores and trait ratings was limited tothose items that loaded on this psychologicalfactor. Given that the MRS is a measure ofpolitical beliefs, high-MRS participants mayhave been particularly wary of labeling astypical of racists psychological or ideologicaltraits because doing so could have led to self-categorization as a racist. Further evidence ofthe relationship between personal race-relatedmotivations and general theories about racismis provided by the positive association of IMSand psychological factor scores. These data sup-ported the prediction that the stronger partici-pants’ own internal motivation to avoidprejudice, the more likely they would be totheorize about White racism using intrinsictraits related to psychological tendencies.

Participant race also failed to predict scoresfor the demographic factor (� = .00). Whenadded to the regression, neither the MRS norIMS predicted scores for this factor (both �s =.02), but EMS scores did (� = .20, p < .005). Aspredicted, the higher participants scored onthe EMS, the more likely they were to theorizeabout racism using extrinsic, superficialdescriptors such as demographics. This signifi-cant relationship between external motivationto avoid prejudice and a demographic conceptu-alization of White racists provides a starkcontrast to the results for the psychological factor.Taken together, these findings demonstratethat the belief systems and motivations that

predict individuals’ own race-related behaviorsalso color their broader theories about racism.The fact that participants were college-agedNortherners, whereas the demographics theyassociated with racists included ‘old’ and‘Southern’, provides further evidence thatpeople tend to associate non-self-relevant traitswith racism.

Study 1a

MethodCollege student experimenters approachedparticipants in public (at stores, restaurants,street fairs, office complexes, and an inter-national airport) and asked them to completethe trait questionnaire used in Study 1. Of the242 individuals who agreed to participate, 189(78.1%) identified as White, 17 (7.0%) asBlack, 14 (5.8%) as Asian, 12 (5.0%) were dis-tributed across other racial categories, and 10(4.1%) did not indicate race; 105 participants(43.4%) were female, 136 (56.2%) were male,and 1 (0.4%) did not indicate gender. Partici-pants’ age ranged from 18 to 79, with anaverage of 37.7 years.

Results and discussionAs Table 1 indicates, means and standard devi-ations for the trait ratings were comparable tothose in Study 1. Factor analysis was performedon these data using principal componentsextraction and direct quartimin rotation. Threeinterpretable factors were again consistent withthe evaluative, psychological, and demographiccategories identified in Study 1. The composi-tion of the three factors was also comparable tothat of Study 1.

Summary of Studies 1 & 1aTo our knowledge, this is the first investigationto identify the specific content of lay theories ofWhite racism—theories that play a central rolein contemporary psychological investigations ofprejudice and discrimination. Traits obtainedthrough open-ended questioning about racismwere rated by subsequent participants inStudies 1 and 1a, and three factors were foundto underlie trait theories of racism: an evaluative


125

factor comprising a broad negative stereotypeof racists, a psychological factor related to biasedbelief systems and thought processes, and afactor comprised of nonself-relevant demo-graphic characteristics. Analysis by participantrace indicated a tendency for non-White indi-viduals to have a more negative view of thecategory ‘White racist’ than Whites, as indi-cated by higher ratings for the evaluative factortraits. Additional individual differences pre-dicted scores for the latter two factors. Specifi-cally, lower MRS and higher IMS scores wereassociated with higher scores for the psychologi-cal factor, and EMS scores were positively associ-ated with demographic factor scores, consistentwith predictions regarding motivations todistance the self from the category ‘racist’.

Study 2

To examine the behaviors associated with Whiteracism, we designed a measure similar to thetrait measure of Study 1. More so than traits,though, behaviors often serve as the observablecriteria by which determinations of racism aremade. Therefore, Study 2 items were phrased asfollows: ‘A White person who tells jokes aboutBlack people is a racist’. This wording preservedthe diagnostic quality that behaviors have fordeterminations of racism. In contrast to Study1, which focused on traits deduced from thelabel ‘racist’, Study 2 required participants touse inductive reasoning to judge categorymembership based on behavioral evidence.

MethodBehavior generation As in Study 1, we used anopen-ended question to generate behaviorsassociated with racists. Twenty-three collegestudents were asked: ‘Think about the category“White racist”. What behaviors do you associatewith it?’ Thirty-seven behaviors were identifiedby at least three participants, and this list wasshown to judges blind to the objectives of thestudy for clarification and combination ofredundant items. This process yielded 29 finalitems, which can be found in Table 3 (31 itemsare listed because two items were replaced inStudy 2a).

Participants A total of 315 undergraduatepsychology students at two universities in theNortheast completed the final questionnaire inmass testing sessions as part of a classroomexercise or in exchange for course credit. Ofthese students, 199 (63.2%) identified as White,22 (7.0%) as Black, 36 (11.4%) as Asian, 36(11.4%) were distributed across other racialcategories, and 22 (7.0%) did not provide racialinformation; 147 participants (46.7%) werefemale, 147 (46.7%) were male, and 21 (6.7%)did not indicate gender.

Materials As in Study 1, the final question-naire had two sections. The behavior sectionbegan with the following instructions: ‘We areinterested in your perceptions of socialbehavior and your ideas about racism. Pleaseuse the scale below to respond to the state-ments that follow’. A 21-point scale was pre-sented (1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 11 = ‘neutral’,21 = ‘strongly agree’), followed by the 29 behav-iors in random order, each preceded by thewords ‘A White person who . . .’ and followed by‘. . . is a racist’. The other section of the ques-tionnaire consisted of the MRS, IMS, and EMS.The two sections were counterbalanced tocontrol for order effects. Of all factor and indi-vidual difference scores, only Factor 1 scoresrevealed an order effect. This effect againresulted from disparities in the racial composi-tion of the two order conditions and dis-appeared when only Whites’ responses wereanalyzed (t(188) < 1).

Results and discussionBehavior descriptives Means and standarddeviations for ratings of the 29 behavior itemsare presented in Table 3. Interestingly, whenasked to list behaviors, participants did not limitthemselves to observable actions, but ratherprovided a broader sample of discriminatoryresponses including thoughts and preferences.Indeed, examples of stereotyping, prejudice,and discrimination are all represented, a factwhich—combined with the subtle nature ofsome of these behaviors—illustrates that infer-ences about intent and preference play a largerole in lay theories of racism. Comparisons


126

Somm

ers & N

ortonlay

th

eor

ies of r

ac

ism

127

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for racist behaviors in Studies 2 and 2a

Study 2 Study 2a

Behavior M SD M SD

Denies group membership to Blacks on account of race 19.33 3.32 19.53 3.58Belongs to a group that promotes racial bigotry 19.19 3.31 19.32 4.12Discourages kids from playing with Blacks 18.04 3.66 17.70 5.03Believes Blacks are inferior but never says so publicly 18.04 4.18 18.10 4.97Thinks Blacks are not suited for certain professions 17.70 4.09 18.33 4.38Favors White over Black job applicants 17.33 3.99 18.14 4.38Believes in genetic differences in White and Black intelligence 15.40 5.61 16.85 5.91Shares biased thoughts with White friends but not the public – – 16.71 5.43Discourages friends/family from marrying a Black person 14.66 5.14 15.31 5.62Agrees with societal stereotypes about Blacks 14.52 4.70 15.46 5.85Says negative things about Black people but doesn’t act on them 14.43 4.80 14.48 5.81Prefers not to be around Blacks 14.38 4.95 14.29 6.37Uses racial epithets about Black people in conversation 13.93 5.28 14.34 5.74Believes Blacks are more likely to commit crimes than Whites 12.52 5.47 14.07 6.29Only tries to avoid prejudice because of political correctness 12.47 5.13 – –Doesn’t care if actions toward Blacks are seen as prejudiced 12.15 6.04 – –Supports the flying of the Confederate flag 11.98 5.95 12.74 6.93Tells jokes about Black people 11.27 5.36 11.79 6.48Thinks slavery so long ago that it is unimportant to talk about 9.95 5.88 11.02 6.42Laughs at another person’s jokes about Black people 9.89 5.07 10.54 6.13Is uncomfortable around Blacks 9.78 4.84 10.87 6.21Believes that Blacks are genetically superior athletes 9.58 5.86 9.57 6.70Feels anxious around Blacks 9.09 4.85 10.54 5.82Believes that prejudice against Blacks is no longer a problem 8.79 5.27 9.92 5.89Doesn’t speak up or act when someone else is racist 8.74 5.02 9.73 6.07Doesn’t care if statements are politically incorrect – – 9.29 5.96Has trouble distinguishing Black people from one another 7.75 5.02 9.28 6.27Opposes affirmative action 6.42 5.24 7.86 6.46Doesn’t socialize regularly with Blacks 6.12 4.52 6.85 5.84Only has White friends 6.08 4.60 6.85 5.84Only dates other White people 4.27 4.49 6.67 5.95

Notes: Values based on responses to the following statement: ‘A White person who (insert behavior here) is a racist’. Responses were made on a scale of1–21, where 1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 11 = ‘neutral’, and 21 = ‘strongly agree’. N = 315 (Study 2); N = 251 (Study 2a).

between White and non-White participantsrevealed that ratings differed significantly for11 items, with non-Whites averaging a higherrating in each instance.3 This was consistentwith predictions, as well as other findings thatperceptions of racism often differ by race (e.g.Inman, Huerta, & Oh, 1998; Rollman, 1978).

Factor analysis Exploratory factor analysis wasperformed on the behavior data using principalcomponents extraction and direct quartiminrotation. Analysis of the scree plot indicated athree-factor solution accounting for 47.6% ofthe variance explained.4 Factor loadings fromthis pattern matrix are reported in Table 4.Interfactor correlations were .29 for Factors 1and 2, .46 for Factors 1 and 3, and .24 forFactors 2 and 3. Factor scores were computedusing the regression method.

Ten items loaded at .45 or above on Factor 1,which accounted for 31.5% of the varianceexplained. The mean response for these itemswas 8.9 with an average standard deviation of4.92.5 Factor 1 behaviors share the commontheme of discomfort/unfamiliarity with Blacks(e.g. ‘feels anxious around Blacks’, ‘has troubledistinguishing Black people from oneanother’). These behaviors represent a subtleform of racial bias that Gaertner and Dovidio(1986) would suggest is subject to attempts atnonprejudiced justification. For example, aWhite person who ‘only has White friends’might justify that behavior by stating that helives in a predominantly White neighborhood.Indeed, several White participants annotatedtheir questionnaires with such mitigating expla-nations.

Nine behaviors reached the .45 cut-off forFactor 2, accounting for 10.9% of the varianceexplained. Compared to the subtle behaviors ofFactor 1, the Factor 2 behaviors are typical oftraditional or overt racism. Unlike trait theories,the structure of participants’ behavior ratingsdid reflect the old-fashioned/modern racismdichotomy popular among psychologists. Overtracism, though, still appears to reign supremein terms of consensus theories about Whiteracism, as participants’ mean rating of 17.0 forthese items was much higher than that of the

other two behavior factors, and the averagestandard deviation of 4.13 was the lowest of thethree factors. Most laypeople seem to agree thata White person who ‘discourages kids fromplaying with Blacks’, ‘favors White over Blackjob applicants’, or ‘belongs to a group thatpromotes racial bigotry’ constitutes a racistprototype.

Factor 3 had five items and accounted for5.2% of the variance explained. The averagerating for these items was 9.2 with an averagestandard deviation of 5.47, and they share thetheme of denial of racism as a continuingproblem. Some items are explicit about this view-point (e.g. ‘thinks slavery is so long ago that itis unimportant to talk about’), whereas otheritems represent political stances that have beenassociated with decreased concern regardingdiscrimination against Black Americans (e.g.‘opposes affirmative action’). This factor, likeFactor 1, is consistent with theoretical descrip-tions of a subtle, modern form of White racism.In fact, ‘believes that prejudice against Blacks isno longer a problem’ essentially paraphrases anitem from the MRS (McConahay, 1986), andvarious researchers have identified as a centralcomponent of modern racists’ beliefs thedenial of racism as a contemporary socialproblem (Monteith & Spicer, 2000).

Individual differences As with the Study 1factors, behavior factor scores were firstregressed on participant race before additionalindividual difference predictors were added tothe model. For the discomfort/unfamiliarityfactor, non-White participants were, as expected,more likely than Whites to rate behaviors asindicative of racism (� = –.27, p < .0001). TheMRS emerged as a negative predictor of scoresfor this factor (� = –.34, p < .0001), and the IMSa positive predictor (� = .29, p < .0001); theEMS was not significantly associated with scoresfor any of the behavior factors (� = .08 in thiscase). These data were consistent with the pre-diction that high-MRS participants would beless likely to label ambiguously biased behaviorsas indicative of racism. This suggests that a con-tributing factor to high-MRS individuals’ beliefthat prejudice is no longer a problem is that


128

they rarely perceive subtle behaviors (such asrefusing to socialize with Blacks) as indicative ofracial bias. These results also supported theprediction that high-IMS participants would be

more prone to viewing subtle behaviors as diag-nostic of racism. Just as high-IMS individuals’own race-related behavior is influenced byintrinsic motivations, so too are they likely to


129

Table 4. Pattern matrix factor loadings for behaviors associated with racism in Study 2

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3(discomfort/ (overt (denial of

Behavior unfamiliarity) racism) problem)

Feels anxious around Blacks .81 –.10 .00Is uncomfortable around Blacks .71 .01 .08Doesn’t socialize regularly with Blacks .69 –.24 .19Has trouble distinguishing Black people from one .62 –.01 .15

anotherOnly has White friends .59 –.27 .34Believes Blacks are more likely to commit crimes .58 .21 –.07

than WhitesOnly dates other White people .54 –.16 .19Prefers not to be around Blacks .51 .37 –.12Laughs at another person’s jokes about Black people .50 .24 .13Tells jokes about Black people .45 .31 .06Only tries to avoid prejudice because of political .41 .39 –.07

correctnessBelieves that Blacks are genetically superior athletes .39 .23 .13

Discourages kids from playing with Blacks –.12 .78 .13Denies group membership to Blacks on account of race –.24 .77 .08Thinks Blacks are not suited for certain professions –.11 .70 .19Believes Blacks are inferior but never says so publicly –.04 .66 .05Favors White over Black job applicants .35 .60 –.15Belongs to a group that promotes racial bigotry –.04 .59 –.06Says negative things about Black people but doesn’t .28 .57 .03

act on themDiscourages friends/family from marrying a Black .15 .53 .06

personAgrees with societal stereotypes about Blacks .09 .52 .26Uses racial epithets about Black people in .22 .43 .12

conversationBelieves in genetic differences in White and Black .32 .36 .10

intelligence

Believes that prejudice against Blacks is no longer a –.02 .03 .79problem

Thinks slavery so long ago that it is unimportant –.02 .12 .77to talk about

Doesn’t speak up or act when someone else is racist .13 .08 .68Supports the flying of the Confederate flag –.05 .09 .68Opposes affirmative action .33 –.10 .50Doesn’t care if actions towards Blacks are seen as .19 .12 .35

prejudiced

Notes: N = 315. Factor loadings of .45 and above are in bold.

ascribe an internal motivation to the ambigu-ously biased behavior of others.

Individual differences were less reliable pre-dictors of Factor 2 scores. Unlike the subtlebehaviors of Factor 1 (as well as Factor 3, dis-cussed in more detail below), no differenceswere indicated between non-White and Whiteparticipants’ scores on the overt racism factor(� = –.00). This demonstrates that racial differ-ences in determinations of racism are less preva-lent when it comes to judging overt actionstypically associated with old-fashioned racialbias, including favoritism toward White jobapplicants or membership in a group thatespouses racism. Such blatant actions are notparticularly amenable to nonracial justifications,and most participants seemed to agree that theyindicate racism. Further analysis revealed thatMRS scores did not predict ratings of these overtracism behaviors (� = .03), nor did EMS scores(� = –.08). Only the IMS emerged as a signifi-cant predictor of scores on this factor, with aninternal motivation to avoid prejudice againassociated with a greater sensitivity to racismand a lower threshold for labeling behaviors asracist (� = .17, p < .05).

As with the ambiguous behaviors of Factor 1,a significant race effect was found for denial ofproblem factor scores (� = –.14, p < .05). Non-Whites were once again more likely to associatethese behaviors with racism than were Whites,confirming that the less overt a manifestation ofracial bias, the more likely it is to lead tobetween-race—as well as within-race—variancein judgments. The MRS also emerged as anegative predictor of this factor (� = –.40, p <.0001), as it had for Factor 1. The MRS wasdesigned to assess subtle racism epitomized byan ideology that minimizes concerns aboutprejudice, which is consistent with the findingthat high MRS scores were associated with lowscores on the discomfort/unfamiliarity and denialof problem factors. It is important to note,however, that despite the similar results forparticipant race and MRS scores across thethree behavior factors, these two variables hadseparate and distinct associations with Factors1 and 3. That is, even controlling for race,MRS was a significant, negative predictor of

participants’ ratings of these behaviors. Neitherthe IMS (� = .10) nor EMS (� = –.08) emergedas significant predictors of denial of problemfactor scores. Once again, though, IMS scoreswere more positively associated with a propen-sity for judging behaviors to be indicative ofracism than were EMS scores.

Study 2a

MethodParticipants were solicited in public using thesame procedure as in Study 1a. Of the 251 par-ticipants, 183 (72.9%) identified as White, 19(7.6%) as Black, 16 (6.4%) as Asian, 20 (8.0%)were distributed across other racial categories,and 13 (5.2%) did not indicate race; 132participants (52.6%) were female, 114 (45.4%)were male, and 5 (2.0%) did not indicategender. Their age ranged from 18 to 66, with anaverage of 35.5 years. To test the reliability of afourth factor, we replaced two items from theStudy 2 questionnaire with new behaviorsrelevant to norm violation or political incorrect-ness (see Table 3 for specific items).

Results and discussionMeans and standard deviations for the behavioritems are presented in Table 3. Factor analysiswas performed using principal componentsextraction and direct quartimin rotation. Thescree plot indicated a three-factor solutionaccounting for 50.8% of the varianceexplained, and these factors were consistentwith the discomfort/unfamiliarity, overt racism, anddenial of problem interpretations of Study 2. Nosubstantive differences in factor compositionemerged between Studies 2 and 2a.

As in Study 2, a four-factor solution provedinterpretable, with behaviors relevant to politicalincorrectness loading on the fourth factor. Onceagain, however, the scree plot did not indicatea four-factor solution, and according to Zwickand Velicer (1986), inaccuracies in scree testinterpretations tend to be overestimations ofthe true number of components, not underesti-mations. Accordingly, the three-factor solutionreported herein remains the most reliable char-acterization of these data.


130

Summary of Studies 2 & 2aWhen asked to list behaviors associated withWhite racism, participants’ responses includedovert actions as well as beliefs and preferences.This suggests that lay theories of racism are notbased solely on observable behavioral criteria,but often rely on inferences drawn about intentand ideology. Unlike trait theories, the struc-ture of theories about racist behaviors doesmap onto the dichotomy of modern versus old-fashioned racism. Discomfort/unfamiliarity anddenial of problem behaviors capture the subtle,ambiguous nature of modern racism. But highratings and low standard deviations for the overtracism behaviors reveal that they remain proto-types of lay conceptualizations of bias. Non-White participants and individuals with lowMRS scores appeared more sensitive to subtleforms of racism, as they were more likely todeem ambiguous behaviors to be indicative ofprejudice. In addition, across factors, the IMSemerged as a better predictor of determina-tions of racism than the EMS, with IMS scorespositively associated with a willingness to inferracist intent and label behaviors as raciallybiased. This conclusion is consistent with theprevious trait results, which suggested thathigh-IMS individuals tend to view racism as theresult of intrinsic factors such as a person’s con-scious attitudes and preferences (see Table 5for summary of MRS, IMS, and EMS resultsacross Studies 1 and 2).

General discussion

The present studies provide an initial examina-tion of lay theories about White racists, a socialcategory of great interest to psychologists, yetone that has escaped empirical analysis. Studies1 and 1a identified the specific content of laytheories regarding racist traits. Interestingly,neither the unambiguously negative evaluativefactor nor the composition of the psychologicalfactor reflected clear distinctions drawnbetween modern and old-fashioned racism, apopular dichotomy among contemporary psy-chologists. Overall, though, the content of thetrait factors indicate that when laypeople thinkabout White racism, they tend to focus onovert, old-fashioned forms: participants’ psycho-logical impressions of racists consisted of‘fearful of change’ and ‘old-fashioned’, anddemographic descriptions included ‘Southern’and ‘old’. In sum, across two different samples,participants were able to articulate distincttheories about the characteristics associatedwith racism, demonstrating the appropriate-ness of approaching this topic from a laytheories perspective.

Studies 2 and 2a comprise a similar investi-gation of the behavioral bases for lay theoriesof White racism. An awareness of modern orsymbolic racism, as discussed by many psychol-ogists, was demonstrated by those participantswho associated discomfort/unfamiliarity and


131

Table 5. Summary of factor score regressions on MRS, IMS, and EMS (Studies 1 and 2)

MRS IMS EMS

Study 1 factorsevaluative traits � = –.06 � = –.01 � = .06psychological traits � = –.20** � = .26** � = .05demographic traits � = .02 � = .02 � = .20**

Study 2 factorsdiscomfort/unfamiliarity behaviors � = –.34** � = .29** � = .08overt racism behaviors � = .03 � = .17* � = –.08denial of problem behaviors � = –.40** � = .10 � = –.08

* p < .05; ** p < .01.Note: Participant race was also included in the regression model for each study.

denial of problem behaviors with racism. In fact,many of the items included in these factors arenot truly ‘behaviors’ per se, but rather describeprivate thoughts, affective responses, andpersonal preferences. That participantsprovided such responses to an open-endedquestion about racism demonstrates that deter-minations of racial bias depend on more thanjust observable acts; these are judgments thatoften involve subjective inferences drawn aboutintent and motivation (Khan & Lambert, 2001;Nielsen, 2002). At the same time, the behaviordata clearly indicate that blatant, old-fashionedracism remains the prototype for lay theories ofWhite racism. Participants’ scores for the overtracism factor were more than twice as high astheir ratings for the subtler behaviors, and theaverage standard deviation was lowest for itemsin this factor as well. These findings suggest thatmany of the behaviors that psychologistsconsider to be indicative of racial bias have not,to this point, entrenched themselves in consen-sus lay conceptualizations of racism.

Multiple components to lay theories of racismThese studies suggest that there are multiplecomponents to lay theories of White racism.One aspect of these theories includes subtle,ambiguous forms of bias, and attributes racismto intrinsic antecedents such as politicalideology. People who think about racism in thismanner tend to cast a wider net in determiningwhat constitutes racism, and are more sensitiveto the possibility of bias in general. Another,narrower perspective of White racism does notinclude examples of subtle bias and describesracists using external characteristics such asdemographics. This seems to be a morecontext-dependent conceptualization, in whichpeople consider mitigating nonracial factorsthat could account for potentially biasedbehavior and hold off on making a determina-tion of racism unless the supporting evidence isincontrovertible.

The present research also identifies individ-ual differences that predict how people theorizeabout racism. Not surprisingly, race was onesuch variable, particularly for behavior theories.Non-White participants were significantly more

likely than Whites to view the subtle behaviorsin the discomfort/unfamiliarity and denial ofproblem factors as indicative of racism. Furtherevidence of between-race differences in howpeople think about racism is provided byvignette studies conducted subsequent to thepresent investigation. In this research, non-White participants were more likely to deemthe label ‘racist’ appropriate when an actor wasengaged in a behavior from either of these twofactors. This result was obtained through com-parison of White and non-White collegestudents, as well as using a noncollege sampleof 75 White and 65 Black participants (Norton& Sommers, 2006).

Race was not the only individual difference topredict lay theories of White racism. MRS(McConahay, 1986) scores were negative pre-dictors of the tendencies to rate psychologicaltraits as typical of racists and to perceive subtlebehaviors as indicative of racism. These resultsshed additional light on the nature of the indi-vidual difference assessed by the MRS. Beyondvariance in political beliefs and personal prefer-ences, a critical distinction between high- andlow-MRS individuals involves their sensitivity tosubtle forms of racism and their threshold forlabeling others as racists. Motivations torespond without prejudice (Plant & Devine,1998) also predicted theories of racism.Compared to EMS scores, the IMS was astronger positive predictor of the tendency toassociate behaviors with racism. High IMSscores were also associated with the tendency tothink that racism results from stable, intrinsicfactors such as ideology. On the other hand, therelationship between EMS scores and behaviorratings was nonsignificant, suggesting the EMStaps into a context-dependent view of racismthat takes into account situational factors—con-textual information that was absent in the socialjudgment task required by Study 2.

Origins and functions of lay theories of racismOne explanation for these individual differencefindings is that certain ways of thinking aboutsocial behavior lead to particular ways of theo-rizing about racism as well as specific scores onthe MRS, IRS, and EMS scales. For example, a


132

propensity for focusing on situational mitiga-tors of counternormative behavior could leadto both an extrinsic, context-dependent view ofWhite racism as well as high scores on the EMS.However, it is also possible that generalizedtheories about racism and perceptions of one’sown race-related behavior interact to influenceone another. The present studies provide pre-liminary support for the prediction that laytheories of racism serve functions beyond facil-itating social perception and understanding;they also seem to allow people to preserve a safedistance between themselves and the category‘racist’, as individuals pick and choose aspectsof these theories to fit their own psychologicalneeds. Indeed, that participants avoidedendorsing aspects of lay theories that includedcharacteristics or behaviors that they them-selves were likely to exhibit is consistent withprevious findings that people often frame theirattitudes in ways that allow for self-distancingfrom undesirable group affiliations (e.g.Hodson & Esses, 2002; Pool, Wood, & Leck,1998; Wood et al., 1996), unpleasant thoughts(e.g. Schimel et al., 2000), and the appearanceof general bias (Ehrlinger, Gilovich, & Ross,2005; Pronin, Lin, & Ross, 2002).

As detailed above, participants’ scores on theMRS were negatively correlated with scores forthe psychological trait factor, as well as with thediscomfort/unfamiliarity and denial of problembehavior factors. These results indicate thathigh-MRS participants were not less sensitive tothe possibility of racial bias across the board,but rather were particularly unlikely to view asracist traits that are often associated with theirown social attitudes (e.g. ‘old-fashioned’,‘fearful of change’) and subtle behaviors thatare consistent with their political ideology (e.g.‘believes that prejudice against Blacks is nolonger a problem’). Support for this self-distancing hypothesis was also provided by IMSand EMS data. High-IMS participants were par-ticularly likely to describe racists using psycho-logical or ideological traits that they do notpossess. Low-IMS individuals, who presumablyare more likely to be ‘old-fashioned’ or ‘fearfulof change’, tended not to include such descrip-tors in their theorizing about racism. EMS

scores were positively correlated with external,demographic trait descriptions. That is, to theextent that participants focused on extrinsicconcerns in thinking about their own race-related behavior, they tended to endorsenonself-relevant demographics in describingWhite racists in general. These findings suggestthat the origins of lay theories of racism are verymuch intertwined with the development ofone’s own racial attitudes and motivations. Atthe same time that people explore and eventu-ally come to embrace various personal ideolo-gies regarding race, so, too, may they beforming more general theories about whatracial bias is and what it means to be a racist.

A more direct test of this self-distancinghypothesis would require laypeople to rate theextent to which the traits and behavioral ten-dencies identified in the present studies areself-applicable. If lay theories of racism servethe function of allowing people to escapepersonal membership in the category ‘racist’,self-ratings should exhibit a similar pattern tothe results of the present studies.6 But even adesign such as this would be, as is the case withthe present studies, merely correlational. Toexamine the influence of race-related motiva-tions on general theories about White racismrequires manipulation of the salience ofinternal/external pressures to avoid prejudice.For example, making salient personal concernsabout egalitarianism could activate an ideology-based theory of racism and an increased sensi-tivity to subtle forms of bias. Conversely, salientreminders of normative pressures against preju-dice could lead to more context-dependenttheories of racism and an increased likelihoodof generating non-racist explanations forambiguously biased behaviors. Such an experi-mental investigation could provide more con-clusive evidence of the self-distancing functionof lay theories of racism, as well as demonstratethat endorsement of such theories can changeover time or across contexts. It is also worthconsidering that lay theories may serve differ-ent functions for members of different racialgroups. A self-distancing function is most likelyfor Whites, whose race-related behavior is oftendriven by concerns about appearing racist.


133

Members of other racial groups, however, maybe more concerned about whether or notothers are demonstrating bias towards theirgroup (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2001; Sommers,in press), and their theorizing about racismcould very well reflect this different motivation.

Implications for intergroup relationsGenerally speaking, lay theories are assumed todrive thoughts, feelings, and actions (e.g.Cameron et al., 2001; Hong et al., 2001). Thepresent investigation was designed to examinethe content of lay theories regarding Whiteracism, but these theories should also haveobservable effects on social behavior and inter-group relations. For example, considersomeone who believes that racism entails onlyovert behaviors such as membership in a groupthat promotes bigotry or actively prohibitingone’s family from socializing with people ofdifferent races. Such an individual may pursuehousing in all-White neighborhoods andoppose policies such as affirmative actionwithout hesitation or concern that doing so willlead to the appearance of racism. In thismanner, lay theories of racism have a directconsequence for intergroup relations.

Moreover, concerns about distancing oneselffrom racism need not be confined to the self-concept. One interesting issue concerns theimpression management strategies that peopleuse in order to convince others that they arenot biased. Perhaps one way for individuals todemonstrate compliance with norms againstracism would be to show that the traits identi-fied in Study 1 do not apply to their own per-sonalities. Further investigation could addressthis aspect of race-related impression manage-ment by examining how a manipulated threatto one’s egalitarian reputation influences thetraits and characteristics used to describe theself. The behavior data of Study 2 provide evenmore concrete suggestions for how people maytry to avoid the rejection that accompaniesbeing labeled a racist. Simply demonstratingthat you do not, for instance, oppose interracialmarriage or belong to a organization thatpromotes bigotry would probably have littleeffect because the normative nature of these

behaviors should render them nondiagnostic. Amore effective strategy for refuting the label‘racist’ might be to demonstrate the opposite ofone of the subtler behaviors identified in Study2 in order to establish nonracist ‘credentials’(see Monin & Miller, 2001), such as acting in anoverly friendly manner towards Blacks (Norton,Dunn, & Ariely, 2005). John Rocker againprovides an illustrative example. To support hisdenial of racism, Rocker explained to teamofficials that he had ‘as many good friends onthis team that are African-American or Latin as. . . Caucasian’ (‘Rocker apologizes’, 1999). Thenature and effectiveness of such impressionmanagement strategies are important empiricalquestions for predicting and managing socialrelationships.

Perhaps the most problematic implication ofthese studies for intergroup relations is thatthose people who are most likely to think racistthoughts or commit racist acts are also thepeople least likely to see these attitudes andactions as racist. The individual difference dataon which this conclusion is based are correla-tional, but the implications of this finding arenevertheless profound. If people who behave inracist ways do not consider those acts to bebiased, then attempts at sensitivity training orother prejudice reduction efforts become muchmore difficult. How can individuals learn toavoid discrimination if they are unable orunwilling to recognize it in their own behavior?How can two people—or groups of people—discuss and resolve accusations of racism if theyhave drastically different ideas of what racismis?

More specifically, at a between-race level ofanalysis the present studies suggest that non-Whites are more likely to consider subtle formsof bias to be indicative of racism than areWhites. This conclusion is not surprising (seeInman & Baron, 1996; Johnson et al., 2003),but it has noteworthy consequences, namelythat between-race discrepancies in theorizingabout racism are fertile ground for real-liferacial misunderstandings. The present datasuggest that an allegation of bias based on asubtle, ambiguous action is likely to be followedby a denial on the part of that White person


134

that his behavior indicates racism. Lay theoriesabout what is and is not racism also helpexplain why White observers often respond toallegations of subtle bias levied by non-Whiteindividuals with skepticism or questions aboutulterior motives (Kaiser & Miller, 2001). Thepresent investigation makes a clear case thatallegations and conversations regarding thesesubtle types of behaviors are ripe for intergroupconflict and controversy, and therefore in needof further empirical examination.

Of course, it is important to note that thepresent investigation examined lay theoriesusing a context-free paradigm in which partici-pants made judgments in response to a list oftraits and behaviors. Given that these studiescomprise an exploratory step in the fledglingexamination of lay theories of racism, such aninvestigative strategy proved informative.However, real-life determinations of racism arefar more complex and nuanced, as perceiverstypically consider mitigating situational factorsas well as individuating information about atarget. This absence of contextual informationin the present stimulus materials providesanother explanation for the low overall itemratings for two of the behavior factors in Study2: perhaps an ambiguous tendency such assocializing exclusively with White people onlyappears indicative of racism in particularsettings, or maybe suggesting that racial preju-dice is no longer a problem only seems racistwhen made in response to clear-cut evidence tothe contrary. Clearly, future research needs toinclude contextual considerations in examininglay theories of racism, as well as experimentaldesigns able to identify the causal impact ofthese theories on judgment and behavior.Moreover, the present investigation was basedon lay theories generated by American collegestudents about White racists in particular.Despite the replication of our factor analysisresults using noncollege samples, further gener-alization across participant samples and types ofracial bias is necessary. In particular, it would beuseful to recruit larger samples of Black, Latino,Asian, and other non-White participants toexamine more fully between-race differences inlay theories regarding White racism.

Conclusion

Racism, like all topics in psychology, is best under-stood when analyzed from multiple perspectives.The lay theories approach used in the presentinvestigation offers several novel contributions tothis area of research, as well as to the broaderliterature on intergroup perception and inter-action. Accurate knowledge regarding the charac-teristics and behaviors laypeople associate withWhite racism is essential for studying intergrouprelations and determining what is considered tobe acceptable behavior in contemporary society.The present studies also identify ideologies andmotivations that predict variability in lay theoriesabout White racism, broadening our understand-ing of what is truly captured by popular race-related individual difference measures. Moregenerally, this investigation suggests that the useof lay theories is not limited to attempts to makesense of ambiguous stimuli; lay theories can alsoserve the function of distancing the self fromunpleasant thoughts and social affiliations. Insum, by offering a novel perspective on the tra-ditional perceiver/ target paradigm in researchon racism, the present studies shed light on thenature of contemporary race-related norms, moti-vations, and impression management strategies,and raise additional empirical questions to beconsidered in the ongoing examination of preju-dice and discrimination.

Notes1. All factor analyses in Studies 1 and 2 were

performed twice: once using only Whites’responses, and once using all participants’responses (a larger sample of non-Whiteparticipants would have been necessary in orderto conduct a meaningful factor analysis of onlythe responses of these participants). Nosubstantive differences were found between thetwo factor solutions in either study. Given thatthis is the first investigation in this exploratoryline of research, our principal interest was toidentify and examine beliefs about racism held bylaypeople in general. In light of this objective,and in order to allow for comparison of factorscores by participant race, the present trait andbehavior analyses focus on the factor solutionsobtained using the entire sample.


135

2. Comparable analyses using participant gender inboth Studies 1 and 2 revealed no significantdifferences when controlling for MRS, IMS, andEMS.

3. These 11 items were (in descending order bymean rating): ‘agrees with societal stereotypesabout Blacks’; ‘believes Blacks are more likely tocommit crimes than Whites’; ‘only tries to avoidprejudice because of political correctness’;‘laughs at another person’s jokes about Blackpeople’; ‘believes that Blacks are geneticallysuperior athletes’; ‘feels anxious around Blacks’;‘doesn’t speak up or act when someone else isracist’; ‘opposes affirmative action’; ‘doesn’tsocialize regularly with Blacks’; ‘only has Whitefriends’; ‘only dates other White people’.

4. A four-factor solution also proved interpretable,though it was not indicated by the scree test. Thefourth factor consisted of items related to politicalincorrectness or violation of social norms (e.g. ‘tellsracist jokes about Black people’, ‘uses racialepithets about Black people in conversation’). Inorder to test the reliability of this fourth factor,we added two relevant items to the Study 2aquestionnaire. Analysis confirmed the reliabilityof the reported three-factor solution.

5. Though Factor 1 (and 3) behaviors were listed bypretesting participants in response to an open-ended question, low means for these itemsdemonstrate a lack of a consensus that thesebehaviors indicate racism. This finding againunderscores the subjective nature of perceptionsof racism, and implications for attempts to drawconclusions from the present data are examinedin more detail in the general discussion. It isworth recognizing that participants in Study 2surely made comparisons between items as theycompleted the questionnaire. For this reason, theunambiguous and blatant nature of Factor 2items likely drove down mean ratings for Factors1 and 3. Had we also included nonracist, controlbehaviors in this questionnaire, ratings forFactors 1 and 3 would have been pushed higher,perhaps above the scale midpoint. Moreimportantly, Factors 1 and 3 were consistentacross two different samples and—in asubsequent set of studies—these behaviors ledparticipants to attribute racist traits and apply thelabel ‘racist’ to an actor (Norton & Sommers,2006). As such, Factors 1 and 3 are reliableconceptualizations of racism, even if laypeopledisagree about the extent to which thesebehaviors provide conclusive evidence of bias.

6. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for thissuggestion.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors wish to recognize Joel Cooper, PhoebeEllsworth, Markus Kemmelmeier, Benoît Monin, LeifNelson, Norbert Schwarz, Joe Simmons, and OscarYbarra for their helpful comments on previous draftsof this article. They would also like to thankKenworthey Bilz and Chris Fletcher for their helpwith data collection.

ReferencesAdorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D., &

Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality.New York: Harper.

Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G.(2004). No place for nostalgia in science: Aresponse to Arkes and Tetlock. PsychologicalInquiry, 15, 279–310.

Biernat, M., & Crandall, C. S. (1999). Racialattitudes. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S.Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes(pp. 297–411). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., &Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children’s lay theories aboutingroups and outgroups: Reconceptualizingresearch on prejudice. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 5, 118–128.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the numberof factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1,245–276.

Crandall, C. S., Eshelman, A., & O’Brien, L. (2002).Social norms and the expression and suppressionof prejudice: The struggle for internalization.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,359–378.

Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., & Major, B. (1991).Social stigma: The affective consequences ofattributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 60, 218–228.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice:Their automatic and controlled components.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.

Dunton, B. C., & Fazio, R. H. (1997). An individualdifference measure of motivation to controlprejudiced reactions. Personality and SocialPscychology Bulletin, 23, 316–326.

Ehrlinger, J., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2005). Peeringinto the bias blind spot: People’s assessments ofbias in themselves and others. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 31, 680–692.

Fein, S., Morgan, S. J., Norton, M. I., & Sommers,S. R. (1997). Hype and suspicion: The effects ofpretrial publicity, race, and suspicion on jurors’verdicts. Journal of Social Issues, 53, 487–502.


136

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversiveform of racism. In J. Dovidio & S. Gaertner (Eds.),Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89).Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1993). Personalattributes of people described by others asintolerant. In P. Sniderman, P. Tetlock, &E. Carmines (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and theAmerican dilemma (pp. 60–85). Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.

Hodson, G., & Esses, V. M. (2002). Distancingoneself from negative attributes and the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 38, 500–507.

Hong, Y., Levy, S. R., & Chiu, C. (2001). Thecontribution of the lay theories approach to thestudy of groups. Personality and Social PsychologyReview, 5, 98–106.

Inman, M. L., & Baron, R. S. (1996). Influence ofprototypes on perceptions of prejudice. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 70, 727–739.

Inman, M. L., Huerta, J., & Oh, S. (1998). Perceivingdiscrimination: The role of prototypes and normviolation. Social Cognition, 16, 418–448.

Johnson, J. D., Simmons, C., Trawalter, S., Ferguson,T., & Reed, W. (2003). Variation in Black anti-White bias and target cues: Factors thatinfluence perceptions of ‘ambiguously racist’behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29, 609–622.

Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stopcomplaining! The social costs of makingattributions to discrimination. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263.

Karpinski, A., & Hilton, J. L. (2001). Attitudes andthe implicit association test. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 81, 774–788.

Khan, S. R., & Lambert, A. J. (2001). Perceptions ofrational discrimination: When do people attemptto justify race-based prejudice? Basic and AppliedSocial Psychology, 23, 43–53.

Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice andpolitics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats tothe good life. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 40, 414–431.

Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The scheduleof racist events: A measure of racial discriminationand a study of its negative physical and mentalhealth consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22,144–168.

Levy, S. R., Plaks, J. E,. Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & Dweck,C. S. (2001). Static versus dynamic theories andthe perception of groups: Different routes todifferent destinations. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 5, 156–168.

Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2001).Elements of a lay theory of groups: Types ofgroups, relational styles, and the perception ofgroup entativity. Personality and Social PsychologyReview, 5, 129–140.

McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism,ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. InJ. Dovidio, & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice,discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). Orlando,FL: Academic Press.

Monin, B., & Miller, D.T. (2001). Moral credentialsand the expression of prejudice. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 81, 33–43.

Monteith, M. J., & Spicer, C. V. (2000). Contents andcorrelates of Whites’ and Blacks’ racial attitudes.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36,125–154.

Nielsen, L. B. (2002). Subtle, pervasive, harmful:Racist and sexist remarks in public as hate speech.Journal of Social Issues, 58, 265–280.

Norton, M. I., Dunn, E. W., & Ariely, D. (2006). Black is the new White: The persuasive appeal of stigma.Manuscript submitted for publication.

Norton, M. I., Vandello, J. A., & Darley, J. M. (2004).Casuistry and social category bias. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 87, 817–831.

Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2006). Whites’ andBlacks’ perceptions of racially biased thoughts andbehaviors. Unpublished raw data.

Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal andexternal motivation to respond without prejudice.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,811–832.

Pool, G. J., Wood, W., & Leck, K. (1998). The self-esteem motive in social influence: Agreementwith valued majorities and disagreement withderogated minorities. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 75, 967–975.

Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The biasblind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versusothers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,369–381.

Rocker apologizes, says he’s not racist. (1999,December 23). Retrieved July 21, 2004 from:http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/1999/1222/247659.html

Rodin, M. J., Price, J. M., Bryson, J. B., & Sanchez,F. J. (1990). Asymmetry in prejudice attribution.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 481–504.

Rollman, S. A. (1978). The sensitivity of Black andWhite Americans to nonverbal cues of prejudice.Journal of Social Psychology, 105, 73–77.

Schimel, J., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., O’Mahen,H., & Arndt, J. (2000). Running from the shadow:


137

Psychological distancing from others to denycharacteristics people fear in themselves. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 78, 446–462.

Shelton, J. N. (2000). A reconceptualization of howwe study issues of racial prejudice. Personality andSocial Psychology Review, 4, 374–390.

Sommers, S. R. (in press). On racial diversity andgroup decision-making: Identifying multipleeffects of racial composition on jury deliberations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race inthe courtroom: Perceptions of guilt anddispositional attributions. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 26, 1367–1379.

Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2001). White jurorbias: An investigation of racial prejudice againstBlack defendants in the American courtroom.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 201–229.

Swim, J. K., Cohen, L. L., & Hyers, L. L. (1998).Experiencing everyday prejudice anddiscrimination. In J. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.),Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 37–60). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Usingmultivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York:HarperCollins.

Wood, W., Pool, G. J., Leck, K., & Purvis, D. (1996).Self-definition, defensive processing, andinfluence: The normative impact of majority and

minority groups. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 71, 1181–1193.

Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison offive rules for determining the number ofcomponents to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99,432–442.

Paper received 9 September 2004; revised version accepted 8 June 2005.

Biographical notesSAMUEL R. SOMMERS received his PhD in social

psychology from the University of Michigan in2002 and is currently assistant professor ofpsychology at Tufts University in Medford, MA.His research examines stereotyping and prejudice,with a particular focus on the role of race-relatednorms in social perception, judgment, and groupdynamics.

MICHAEL I. NORTON received his PhD in socialpsychology from Princeton University in 2002 andis currently assistant professor of marketing atHarvard Business School in Cambridge, MA. Hisresearch focuses on the impact of social norms onjudgment, decision-making, and behavior,particularly in the domain of political correctness.


138

Lay Theories About White Racists: What Constitutes Racism ... Files...contemporary social mores....

Documents

Transcript of Lay Theories About White Racists: What Constitutes Racism ... Files...contemporary social mores....