Document Sample
Malloy Powered By Docstoc
					Interracial Perception, Affect
        and Behavior
          Thomas E. Malloy
         Rhode Island College

          NSF Sponsored Conference
           University of Connecticut
         SRM and Inter-group Processes
               May 13-15 2007
 Tiina Ristikari
Oxford University

 Rhode Island College Grant
 American Psychological Association
 Eastern Psychological Association
           History and Theory
1968 Kerner Commission reported the United States was “moving
toward two societies, on black, one white – separate and unequal”

Hacker (1992) concluded that Blacks and Whites live in two
separate, unequal, sometimes hostile “nations”

Sigleman et al. (1996) document 40 years of increasing contact of
Blacks and Whites and noted:

“fundamental questions remain unanswered about interracial contact
in … casual encounters and intense relationships”
 Social Psychological Theory
Stephan & Stephan’s (1985; 2000)
Integrated Threat Theory

- anxiety and negative affect
- threat of domination and control
- fear of negative stereotyping
- rejection by the in-group (acting “White”
      or like a “Banana”
Whites’ Responses to Blacks
Stressful and uncomfortable (Ickes, 1984)
Increased physiological arousal (Littleford et al., 2005;
Blascovich et al., 2001; Mendes et al., 2002)
Increased activity of amygdala in response to Black vs.
White faces (Phelps et al., 2000)
Impairment of cognitive functioning on Stroop Color
Naming task following interaction with a Black person
relative to a White person (Richeson & Trawalter, 2005)
Concerned with appearing prejudiced (Dovidio &
Gaertner, 1998)
“Automatic cognition” (Keltner et al., 2003)
Blacks’ Responses to Whites
Stereotype Threat (Steele, 1997)
Stigma Consciousness (Pinel, 1999)
Negation of Negative Stereotypes (Crocker et
al., 1998)
Disengagement when stereotyped (Osborne,
Heightened attention to the other (Fiske, 1993;
Frable et al., 1990)
“Controlled cognition” and attention to threats
(Keltner et al., 2003)
Face to Face Interactions of
   Black and White Men
  -- 20 minute unstructured
  -- 2 outgroup partners
  -- “weak psychological situation”
  34 Blacks and 34 Whites (17 4 person groups)

  Asymmetric Block Design

      B1    B2   W1     W2
B1               x       x
B2               x       x
W1    x     x
W2    x     x

20 minute unstructured interactions
 5 Indicators of each of Big Five Factors
 Metaperceptions (MP) Trait Factors
 3 indicators of Quality of Interaction Factor
 3 indicators of Affect and MP Affect Factors
 Stigma Consciousness & Social Dominance
 Orientation (trait measures)
 Verbal and Non-Verbal behavior coded from
(speaking time, short back channels, long back channels, questions asked, smiles,
  laughs – one Black and one White coder with all reliabilities greater than .85)
             Interracial Trait Perceptions
Table 1
Trait Judgments: Component Variances

                Perceiver      Target    Relationship
                B      W      B     W     B        W
   Factor1    .00     .29*   .00   .00   .59*     .30*
   Factor2    .12     .36*   .00   .00   .33*     .21
   Factor3    .00     .28*   .00   .00   .57*     .42*
   Factor4    .13     .31*   .00   .00   .37*     .35*
   Factor5    .00     .45*   .00   .04   .44*     .09*

1 Extroversion
2 Good Natured
3 Conscientiousness
4 Emotional Adjustment
5 Intelligence
      Interracial Metaperceptions
Table 2
Trait Metaperceptions: Component Variances

              Perceiver        Target          Relationship
              B      W        B     W         B         W
   Factor1   .36*   .59*    .00     .00      .18*      .06
   Factor2   .44*   .47*    .00     .02      .19*      .13*
   Factor3   .15     .57*    .00     .02      .47*      .17*
   Factor4   .35*   .51*    .03     .05      .12        .08
   Factor5   .33*   .41*    .02     .03      .16*       .04

1 Extroversion
2 Good Natured
3 Conscientiousness
4 Emotional Adjustment
5 Intelligence
 Quality of Interaction and Affect
Table 3
Construct Variances: Affect, MP Affect, and Quality of Interaction

                                   Perceiver             Target       Relationship
                                    B      W              B   W        B        W
Quality of Interaction            .20     .35           .13    .00    .53     .19
MP Positive Affect Factor         .20    .39            .23     .00   .43     .10
Positive Affect Factor            .19     .26           .11    .00    .46      .22
              Interracial Behavior
Table 4
Dyadic Behavior: Means and Component Variances

Behavior         Actor      Partner       Relationship/Error

             B       W      B         W    B         W
Time        .32      .00   .00    .00      .68     1.00
Questions    00      .03   .00    .00     1.00      .97
SBC         .51*    .37     .09    .01     .40       .62
LBC         .61*    .00    .33     .00      .06    1.00
Smiles       .20    .55     .00   .04       .80     .41
Laughs       .34*    .69    .00   .02        .66    .30
Table 5
Individual Differences and Actor Effects
in Behavior
                                        Back Channel
Individual Difference   Speaking Time     Construct

                         B      W       B        W

Stigma Consciousness .77*        --     -.45*    --
Social Dominance     -.55*       --     -.83*    --
   General Findings Study 1
Blacks uniquely differentiate interactions
with and traits of Whites
Whites use stereotypes to evaluate
interactions with and traits of Blacks

Maybe Whites don’t differentiate
interactions with any ethnic group
(Possible but not plausible)
             Study 2
 Asocial Interracial Perceptions
Used “type generation paradigm”
developed by Linville et al. (1996)
Blacks and White assigned randomly to
 in-group or out-group conditions
Judge generates between 2 and 10 “types
of persons” from the group
Each type is rated on 25 traits (5 indicators
of Big Five factors of study 1)
Each judge generates a matrix with
dimensions of types (2-10) by factor (5)
Estimate type variance, factor variance,
and interaction variance (error)
Planned Contrasts for Blacks and Whites
in-group and out-group judgments
DV = type and factor variance components
 Idiographic Variance Components
Variance Component           Psychological Interpretation

Category Type         the differentiation of the types on a set of traits
Personality Trait    the differentiation among traits when rating the
                     set of types

Type x Trait         Error
  Mean Type and Factor Variances
                                           Race of Judge
                             Blacks                                   Whites

                      Target Category                           Target Category
                   ----------------------------              -----------------------------
                   Black                White                   Black              White

Type Variance       19.37       =       17.39                    9.31       <      19.08

Factor Variance      2.79       =         2.86                   2.28       =       1.79

Entries are unweighted variance components in a 10 point metric.

Identical results for weighted and unweighted variances
     General Key Findings
Blacks differentiate interaction quality,
affect for partners, and traits of White
partners to a greater extent than Whites
differentiate Blacks

 In terms of traits, this was observed in
face to face and in an asocial context

     Theoretical Implications
The psychological situation (Rotter, 1954) is different for
Blacks and Whites in a face to face interaction

Each has different goals in a stressful social interaction

- occupied with appearing egalitarian and non-racist
- focused on the novelty of the situation – Whites
     outnumber Blacks 14-1 in Rhode Island
- actively monitoring own responses with less attention to
     the interaction partner
- use stereotypes when making judgments
      Theoretical Implications:
- occupied with negating negative stereotypes
- When concerned with being stereotyped enact
behavior to produce a positive social climate
- Both aware of the status difference of the dyad
members in a racist society: more acceptance of
the status difference is associated with less
responsive behavior (talking time, back
channels) or a pattern of disengagement.
       Applied Implications
Environments where Blacks and Whites interact
should be structured so that stereotype threat is
For example, an “Upward Bound” remedial
education program implies that one is low status
and at risk for failure
Alternatively, “Talent Development Programs”
that emphasize cooperative learning (e.g.,
jigsaw classrooms) may enhance outcomes for
minority and majority students

Shared By: