People overestimate their reactions to racism

[Lagmonster]

This isn't new news, but it is interesting. According to a study by one Miss Kawakami from York University people's real-life reactions to racism may be much milder than they would claim.

Science blogger Ed Yong writes about it here. You can link to the paper from there as well.

I don't want to copy his work, so I'll summarize: An experiment was created wherein a group of people, all non-black, were exposed to a black man accidentally bumping into a white person, and the white person uttering some racist comment once the black man was out of earshot. The participant was then asked to decide which of the two men to work with in an unrelated project. A second group of non-blacks were merely told about the event, and asked what they *expected* their reactions to be.

By a wide margin, the people who experienced the racism firsthand were more than willing to choose to partner up with the racist over the black man, but the people who were told about the racism and asked to gauge their own reactions were far more likely to claim to be repulsed by the racist and work with the black man instead. In one test, 17% of the ones who were told about the event said they would work with the racist anyway, whereas 73% of the people who experienced the racist comments firsthand chose the racist white man over the black man to work with. In another test, the ratio was 10% to 63%

What makes the study interesting is the questions it raises; the data itself is laid out plainly, but what does it actually mean? Simple embarassed overcompensation on the part of the people being confronted anecdotally is the most obvious, but it could also show exactly what the researcher says it does: That on average, people actually aren't as bothered by racism as they think they are. I'm interested in the opinions of SDnet on these findings.

Edited title because me no speak good.

[General Zod]

I'd like to see more research on this myself. In any big workplace environment chances are you'd wind up working with someone who's racist in some way, and if you don't want to get fired you probably aren't going to have much choice about whether or not you want to work with them.

[Azazal]

It's an interesting study, but a few questions come to mind:

Did they repeat the experiment, but with a white actor bumping a black actor in front of a black test subject, with the black actor muttering a racial slur?

When the test subjects witnesses the bump and racial slur, how were the actors dressed and how did they present themselves? Were they both in t-shirts and jeans, or was the white guy in a suit and the black guy looked like he just came out of a bad rap video? What would the reaction be is the black actor was in a suit and the white actor looked like Vanilla Ice?

[ArmorPierce]

This isn't new news, but it is interesting. According to a study by one Miss Kawakami from York University people's real-life reactions to racism may be much milder than they would claim.

Science blogger Ed Yong writes about it here. You can link to the paper from there as well.

I don't want to copy his work, so I'll summarize: An experiment was created wherein a group of people, all non-black, were exposed to a black man accidentally bumping into a white person, and the white person uttering some racist comment once the black man was out of earshot. The participant was then asked to decide which of the two men to work with in an unrelated project. A second group of non-blacks were merely told about the event, and asked what they *expected* their reactions to be.

By a wide margin, the people who experienced the racism firsthand were more than willing to choose to partner up with the racist over the black man, but the people who were told about the racism and asked to gauge their own reactions were far more likely to claim to be repulsed by the racist and work with the black man instead. In one test, 17% of the ones who were told about the event said they would work with the racist anyway, whereas 73% of the people who experienced the racist comments firsthand chose the racist white man over the black man to work with. In another test, the ratio was 10% to 63%

What makes the study interesting is the questions it raises; the data itself is laid out plainly, but what does it actually mean? Simple embarassed overcompensation on the part of the people being confronted anecdotally is the most obvious, but it could also show exactly what the researcher says it does: That on average, people actually aren't as bothered by racism as they think they are. I'm interested in the opinions of SDnet on these findings.

White people's dirty little secret. Plenty will come out and say that racism is wrong and get all up in arms when accused of being racist but when you get right down to the personal level that's how most of them still think and feel.

[Starglider]

White people's dirty little secret.

Azazal's point stands; do you seriously think this effect is restricted to white people? That attitude has a certain inherent irony.

[General Zod]

White people's dirty little secret. Plenty will come out and say that racism is wrong and get all up in arms when accused of being racist but when you get right down to the personal level that's how most of them still think and feel.

I think you're jumping to conclusions here. Can you honestly say you'd walk off a job if it meant working with someone who was racist?

[ArmorPierce]

White people's dirty little secret.

Azazal's point stands; do you seriously think this effect is restricted to white people? That attitude has a certain inherent irony.

Not it isn't but what does that matter? Pointing at someone else and claiming that they did it too or they would do it if things were reversed does not absolve someone of responsibility. Further, white people are not the people being oppressed and thus racism directed towards white people from minorities is much different than racism directed from white people to minorities.

I think you're jumping to conclusions here. Can you honestly say you'd walk off a job if it meant working with someone who was racist?

I probably would since I have to work with the person but that's not what's being asked in the article. The article have people choosing who they'd rather work with.

If anything, they were more likely to pick their white associate if they made a racist slur than if they said nothing.

Bonding over racism, how nice

[General Zod]

Not it isn't but what does that matter? Pointing at someone else and claiming that they did it too or they would do it if things were reversed does not absolve someone of responsibility. Further, white people are not the people being oppressed and thus racism directed towards white people from minorities is much different than racism directed from white people to minorities.

The fact that the study says 120 people of mixed races were chosen, and 63% of them sided with the racist white guy suggests that there's more involved than "whiteys are secretly racist". Unless you're claiming that every one of those 63% were white.

[ArmorPierce]

Not it isn't but what does that matter? Pointing at someone else and claiming that they did it too or they would do it if things were reversed does not absolve someone of responsibility. Further, white people are not the people being oppressed and thus racism directed towards white people from minorities is much different than racism directed from white people to minorities.

The fact that the study says 120 people of mixed races were chosen, and 63% of them sided with the racist white guy suggests that there's more involved than "whiteys are secretly racist". Unless you're claiming that every one of those 63% were white.

Alright if the population was totally random it would still be a majority white and again the people in power as I had previously stated is what makes the difference (yes from anyone is wrong). Yes, non-white people can be racist against black people too. In fact, I see immigrants are more often more open about their racism.

You think that "there must be more involved in the experiment" is more likely than your "whiteys are secretly racist"? In a society where racism against blacks has been so ingrained and racism still plays a major part in our society?

[General Zod]

Alright if the population was totally random it would still be a majority white and again the people in power as I had previously stated is what makes the difference (yes from anyone is wrong). Yes, non-white people can be racist against black people too. In fact, I see immigrants are more often more open about their racism.

The point is that "blaming whitey" is a childish mentality to take if you're honestly looking for deeper answers here than satisfying your own bias.

You think that "there must be more involved in the experiment" is more likely than your "whiteys are secretly racist"? In a society where racism against blacks has been so ingrained and racism still plays a major part in our society?

Do you honestly think that this kind of mindset wouldn't occur in any ethnic group that holds a super-majority over a given minority? Or do you really think it's something unique to white people?

[ThomasP]

White people's dirty little secret.

I wonder if you realize the irony of this phrasing, given the subject matter.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Looking at this study, it accurately tests for a "social desirability bias" inherent in merely asking someone if they WOULD work with a racist. They detected it. Here is how.

It is a given that people will say they are not racist (and in fact dont like racists). Is this due to them not actually being racist, or is it because they dont want to be perceived as racist? You test this to get a baseline by getting people to proclaim their anti-racism (via the anecdotal racism test).

You test for social desirability bias by then using deception (you cant set up this sort of experiment with the subjects KNOWING what is being tested. Fucks up your results).

If people are really anti-racist you would expect the results to be in line with the results from the first test. IE. they would show a preference for working with the black guy. If they dont give a shit, you would expect a random distribution. 50/50. If they were Actively racist, and approved of the racist guy's remarks, you would expect them to show a preference for working with the racist.

Here is the stat for the relevant test

[{chi}2(2, N = 73) = 17.80, P < 0.001]

This indicates that people are actually REALLY fucking racist. Regardless of what non-black race they are.

[ThomasP]

If people are really anti-racist you would expect the results to be in line with the results from the first test. IE. they would show a preference for working with the black guy. If they dont give a shit, you would expect a random distribution. 50/50. If they were Actively racist, and approved of the racist guy's remarks, you would expect them to show a preference for working with the racist.

Alyrium, what criteria did they use to assess this?

Was it just taken as an assumption that not-racist = choose to work with the black guy?

Does the paper go into more detail? As it's reported it seems rather vague; you might expect that the non-racists would choose to work with the black guy, but that on analysis that sounds like a question that's wide-open for interpretation. I'm wondering what steps they took to control for confounds in that assumption.

[Serafina]

White people's dirty little secret.

Azazal's point stands; do you seriously think this effect is restricted to white people? That attitude has a certain inherent irony.

Well, you are more likely to be tolerant if you have been subject to intolerance.
Since minorities are more likely to be subjects to intolerance, they are also more likely to be tolerant.

Of course, thats just my (maybe wishfull) opinion, based on some personal experience.

The study is definately interesting, though hardly surprising - people generally overdescribe their actions.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If people are really anti-racist you would expect the results to be in line with the results from the first test. IE. they would show a preference for working with the black guy. If they dont give a shit, you would expect a random distribution. 50/50. If they were Actively racist, and approved of the racist guy's remarks, you would expect them to show a preference for working with the racist.

Alyrium, what criteria did they use to assess this?

Was it just taken as an assumption that not-racist = choose to work with the black guy?

Does the paper go into more detail? As it's reported it seems rather vague; you might expect that the non-racists would choose to work with the black guy, but that on analysis that sounds like a question that's wide-open for interpretation. I'm wondering what steps they took to control for confounds in that assumption.

They were testing both non-racism and anti-racism. The criteria for just not giving a shit is the null hypothesis if 50/50. Being actively against racism (and thus not preferring the white guy because they find his behavior repulsive) was to detect one direction of significant difference, while being actively racist (preferring the white guy) was the other direction.

The actual paper goes into more detail.

[Lusankya]

I'd more think that they were expecting the non-racists to select against the openly racist one, rather than actively choose the black guy. I'd guess that's why they did the test with no comment: it gave a baseline as to how likely they would be to choose either actor without knowing that the white guy was racist.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'd more think that they were expecting the non-racists to select against the openly racist one, rather than actively choose the black guy. I'd guess that's why they did the test with no comment: it gave a baseline as to how likely they would be to choose either actor without knowing that the white guy was racist.

That is correct. And it is essentially 50/50 for the people actually there. I will have to recheck the paper for whether or not the forecaster test was significantly different from expected. Though it looks like it would be...

Which really is rather interesting. I will need to recheck things, but it looks like the forecasters are actively racist in absence of a viewed or heard of racist comment...

[Count Chocula]

Further, white people are not the people being oppressed..

WTF? Where's the oppression? Fuck, you grew up in a New York borough; I presume you spent time in Manhattan, one of the most polyglot cities in the world, yes? Show me the oppression.

To the study: there are a lot of variables that are unanswered. Nothing is said, as Azazal notes, about the way the actors were dressed. Did the actors who were bumped affect regional accents? What was the racial composition of the 120 non-black volunteers? Was the knee bumping set as deliberate or accidental? Why were there no black volunteers? The study was one of three hypothetical black-white interactions over minor physical contact. The data shown in the referenced charts can be influenced by all of the above unanswered questions. If I were hiring someone, would I hire a black guy with droopy drawers, a sideways hat and slurred speech (YES I KNOW I'm stereotyping to make a point)? Or, would I hire an equally qualified woman who was polite, well-dressed, and well-spoken? Guess what, Bunky: in the business world, well-educated, well-dressed, well-spoken and well-mannered win out over the opposite every time. The data presented in the referenced article summary includes no context or identification of other factors that may have influenced the experiencers' selection of the white candidate. The full study at AAAS requires an AAAS membership or purchase; if anyone here is an AAAS member and can post the study to provide more context, I'd appreciate it. As it stands, this paper appears, ummm, biased, lending credence to Alyrium's assertion.

The study, as summarized, leads me to infer two 'facts:'

1. People are less sensitive to racist comments than most who get their news from the networks would expect;
2. It's easy to take a hypothetical stance against emotionally-charged issues, and less easy to adhere to that position in "real" life.

EDIT: Looks I'm late to the dogpile.

[Count Chocula]

Well, you are more likely to be tolerant if you have been subject to intolerance.
Since minorities are more likely to be subjects to intolerance, they are also more likely to be tolerant.

I'm sorry, Serafina, really, I am, but...

ROTFLMAO!!1!1!

From my observations and reading, that is NOT how it works. Understand I'm operating from the perspective of a white guy reading about racism, but here are a few counter-examples:

1. Rosa Parks. One day she basically said "fuck this shit," and sat where she wasn't supposed to...and helped change a nation;
2. Malcolm X: '60s radical who, unlike MLK, decided not to turn the other cheek;
3. Those few brave blacks in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana who responded to Ku Klux Klan slurs, burning crosses and attacks on their homes with buckshot;
4. The organization MOVE in Philly, although that ended badly;
5. The Black Panther party;
6. Al Sharpton: the man who turned race-baiting into an art form;
7. Kanye West: "George Bush Doesn't Care about Black People"
8. Michelle Obama, possibly, for her 2008 "For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime I'm Really Proud of My Country" speech

For your affirmative examples you could cite Bill Cosby, who is simply a funny and wealthy American man, and Martin Luther King, who famously said:

I look forward confidently to the day when all who work for a living will be one with no thought to their separateness as Negroes, Jews, Italians or any other distinctions. This will be the day when we bring into full realization the American dream -- a dream yet unfulfilled. A dream of equality of opportunity, of privilege and property widely distributed; a dream of a land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few; a dream of a land where men will not argue that the color of a man's skin determines the content of his character; a dream of a nation where all our gifts and resources are held not for ourselves alone, but as instruments of service for the rest of humanity; the dream of a country where every man will respect the dignity and worth of the human personality.

Hell ArmorPierce's attitude in this thread disproves your point...taking as given that he's been subject to intolerance.

EDIT: The WWII Warsaw Ghetto uprising is another historical example of an oppressed people not turning the other cheek, even though that too ended badly.

EDIT 2: well shit, I forgot this part of Point 3 above. Those 'few brave blacks' were the ones who were able to actually GET firearms. Yeah, in the '50s discrimination extended to discouraging firearms ownership by uppity you-know-whats. It's a shame, IMO, that there weren't more red-stained white robes in the South.

[ArmorPierce]

Further, white people are not the people being oppressed..

WTF? Where's the oppression? Fuck, you grew up in a New York borough; I presume you spent time in Manhattan, one of the most polyglot cities in the world, yes? Show me the oppression.

Yes I grew up in New York City and racism was still common enough there. This study shows the oppression on this thread shows the oppression, where blacks are today shows the oppression.

To the study: there are a lot of variables that are unanswered. Nothing is said, as Azazal notes, about the way the actors were dressed. Did the actors who were bumped affect regional accents? What was the racial composition of the 120 non-black volunteers? Was the knee bumping set as deliberate or accidental? Why were there no black volunteers? The study was one of three hypothetical black-white interactions over minor physical contact. The data shown in the referenced charts can be influenced by all of the above unanswered questions. If I were hiring someone, would I hire a black guy with droopy drawers, a sideways hat and slurred speech (YES I KNOW I'm stereotyping to make a point)? Or, would I hire an equally qualified woman who was polite, well-dressed, and well-spoken? Guess what, Bunky: in the business world, well-educated, well-dressed, well-spoken and well-mannered win out over the opposite every time. The data presented in the referenced article summary includes no context or identification of other factors that may have influenced the experiencers' selection of the white candidate. The full study at AAAS requires an AAAS membership or purchase; if anyone here is an AAAS member and can post the study to provide more context, I'd appreciate it. As it stands, this paper appears, ummm, biased, lending credence to Alyrium's assertion.

of course this is what is argued whenever someone brings up racism. There's almost always alterate reasons given to explain why people acted the way they did. That's why I like this study http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _97235741/ which demonstrates that given equal qualifications, people with black sounding names were significantly less likely to get a call back.

The study, as summarized, leads me to infer two 'facts:'

1. People are less sensitive to racist comments than most who get their news from the networks would expect;
2. It's easy to take a hypothetical stance against emotionally-charged issues, and less easy to adhere to that position in "real" life.

EDIT: Looks I'm late to the dogpile.

Right because people being more likely to pair with the after he made a racist comment has nothing to do with people being racist themselves.

Hell ArmorPierce's attitude in this thread disproves your point...taking as given that he's been subject to intolerance.

you do realize I'm white, right?

[ArmorPierce]

The point is that "blaming whitey" is a childish mentality to take if you're honestly looking for deeper answers here than satisfying your own bias.

I agree that the "blame whitey" mentality is childish and does not solve anything but I also recognize where they are coming from with that mentality.

Do you honestly think that this kind of mindset wouldn't occur in any ethnic group that holds a super-majority over a given minority? Or do you really think it's something unique to white people?

As I had stated:

Not it isn't but what does that matter? Pointing at someone else and claiming that they did it too or they would do it if things were reversed does not absolve someone of responsibility.

[Count Chocula]

you do realize I'm white, right?

If your av is a picture of you, umm, no. You look about as European/Nordic White as my Hungarian/AmerInd grandfather (not much) or my Cuban wife. Furthermore, your posts in this thread shout "oppressed minority! pity me! accommodate me!"

Maybe I'm confused, but you look Continental Spanish to me. If I'm wayyyy off base, feel free to correct.

[loomer]

I'd be interested in seeing an Australian version of this - racism is very much alive and well here (far moreso than in America, anyway), so the statistics should be different.

[General Zod]

As I had stated:

Not it isn't but what does that matter? Pointing at someone else and claiming that they did it too or they would do it if things were reversed does not absolve someone of responsibility.

Except accepting responsibility has precisely dick to do with my point. Honestly though, if you really are white that just makes your original post even more hilarious, because it makes it look like you're doing everything possible to establish yourself as "not racist"; not like "those other" white people.

[ArmorPierce]

you do realize I'm white, right?

If your av is a picture of you, umm, no. You look about as European/Nordic White as my Hungarian/AmerInd grandfather (not much) or my Cuban wife. Furthermore, your posts in this thread shout "oppressed minority! pity me! accommodate me!"

Maybe I'm confused, but you look Continental Spanish to me. If I'm wayyyy off base, feel free to correct.

You must have a very limited definition of white in that case. Yes, my ancestors from my mother was continental Spanish and in the country she's from she'd be called gringo. My father has blond hair and green eyes but he's not Nordic European but they all consider themselves white. Whatever the case, I'm not black or even brown. I'm about to go to work I'll get back to respond better after.