Assessing Anti-White Attitudes and Predicting Perceived Racism: The Johnson-Lecci Scale

1

2

3

4

5

6789

1011

12

1314151617181920212223

2425

PAID 3144 No. of Pages 11

22 November 2005 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

DPR

OO

FPredicting perceived racism and acceptance of negativebehavioral intergroup responses: Validating the JLS in a

college and community sample of Blacks

James D. Johnson a, Len Lecci a,*, Janet Swim b

a Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 South College Road,

Wilmington, NC 28403-5612, United Statesb Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, 515 Moore Building,

University Park PA, 16802, United States

Received 21 March 2005; received in revised form 1 August 2005; accepted 19 September 2005

E

CO

RR

EC

T

Abstract

The present study provides a replication and extension of the validity of a measure of anti-White atti-tudes in Blacks. A college and community sample of Black participants completed the recently developedJohnson–Lecci Scale (JLS) and subsequently made responses to scenarios involving ambiguously racistbehavior, direct confrontation with a perceived racist, and Black anti-White discrimination. The resultsindicated that Black intergroup attitudes involving expectations of racism factors did predict perceived rac-ism in the ambiguously racist scenario and acceptance of direct confrontation with a racist, but they did notpredict acceptance of anti-White discrimination. However, anti-White discrimination was predicted by theattitudes associated with outgroup-directed negative responses. Moreover, the findings indicate that thereare a number of differences between the college and community samples on both the nature of their anti-White attitudes and intergroup responses towards Whites.� 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Anti-White bias; JLS; Confronting; Sensitivity to racism

UN

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.019

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 910 962 7262; fax: +1 910 962 7010.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.D. Johnson), [email protected] (L. Lecci).

26

272829303132333435363738

39

4041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465

2 J.D. Johnson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

PAID 3144 No. of Pages 11

22 November 2005 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS

UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F

1. Introduction

Social psychologists have paid a great deal of attention to Whites� anti-Black attitudes andbehaviors with regard to the content and structure of these beliefs (Biernat & Crandall, 1999),changes in endorsement of beliefs over time (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Sears, 1998), Whites� dis-crimination against African Americans (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002), andreducing prejudice (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2000). There are two major consequencesof this focus on White attitudes. First, we know relatively little about Blacks� anti-White attitudes.Second, Blacks are typically portrayed as passive targets of Whites� attitudes and behavior (e.g.,Swim & Stangor, 1998). As such, little is known about Blacks� contribution to intergroup inter-actions. Moreover, what we do know can be characterized primarily as the examination of intra-personal factors associated with Whites� anti-Black attitudes. However, a full understanding ofintergroup relationships between Blacks and Whites requires that we know how both contributeto these relationships (Devine, 1995; Hyers & Swim, 1998).

1.1. Black attitudes towards Whites

Although researchers had previously engaged in some assessment of Black intergroup attitudes(see Brigham, 1977), it was not until 1994 that the first formal scale was published to assess Blackracial attitudes towards Whites. Items for this measure were largely drawn from previously pub-lished attitude scales designed to measure Whites� anti-Black attitudes (with racial designationsreversed) and augmented with items generated from round table discussions among biracial pan-els (Brigham, 1994). Although this initial empirical analysis was an important contribution to theliterature, ideally, the study of anti-White attitudes held among Blacks would involve the use ofBlack respondents to generate an original pool of items that reflects their everyday experience ofanti-White attitudes, rather than borrowing items from anti-Black racial attitude measures. Theco-opting of items developed to evaluate White anti-Black attitudes is problematic, as theremay be meaningful differences between the anti-Black attitudes held among Whites, and theanti-White attitudes held among Blacks (see also Brigham, 1994). Indeed, social scientists other-wise run the risk of drawing premature conclusions regarding the intergroup generalizability ofvarious psychological processes (Sue, 1999).In an effort to provide a more specialized and meaningful assessment of Blacks� racial attitudes

towards Whites, Johnson and Lecci (2003) developed a four factor scale that directly measuredBlack anti-White bias. The Johnson–Lecci Scale (JLS) was generated from the everyday experi-ences of Black respondents using an act-frequency approach (Buss & Craik, 1983), and the scaleconfiguration was empirically derived and cross-validated in an independent sample using confir-matory factor analysis. The resulting JLS factors (subscales) were: (a) Ingroup-directed stigmati-zation and discriminatory expectations (e.g., I believe that most Whites really do support the ideasand thoughts of racist political groups.); (b) Outgroup-directed negative beliefs (e.g., I believe thatthe success of a White person is due to their color), (c) Negative views toward ingroup–outgrouprelations (e.g., I have referred to mixed couples as ‘‘sell outs’’) and (d) Negative verbal expressiontowards the outgroup (e.g., I have insulted a White person). The subscales of the JLS were shownto predict the perceptions of discrimination in ambiguously racist scenarios (i.e., perceived racism)

666768697071727374757677787980818283

84

858687888990919293949596979899100101102

103

104105

J.D. Johnson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 3

PAID 3144 No. of Pages 11

22 November 2005 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS

UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F

and converged with peer evaluations of the participants� anti-White attitudes (Johnson & Lecci,2003).Although the subscales of the Johnson–Lecci scale demonstrate that Black intergroup attitudes

involve both perceptual (e.g., Ingroup-directed stigmatization and discriminatory expectations)and outgroup-directed beliefs/behaviors components (e.g., negative verbal expression towardsthe outgroup), it is not clear whether such complexity will have implications for intergroup re-sponses. More specifically, the discriminant validity of the various subscales of the JLS has notbeen clearly established. It is certainly possible that the perceptual subscale will be more predictiveof responses associated with perceived racism, while the outgroup-directed subscale will be morepredictive of intergroup responses that involve negative treatment of Whites. Thus, there will bean assessment of predictive validity of the various subscales of the JLS in intergroup interactionsinvolving perceived racism (i.e., racist attributions in ambiguously racist situations, and directconfrontations with perceived racists) and negative treatment of Whites (i.e., blatant anti-Whitediscrimination). While the focus on perceived racism responses would serve to provide a replica-tion to earlier research (Johnson & Lecci, 2003), the attention given to direct interracial confron-tations and anti-White discrimination is important because of evidence that they are bothbecoming common forms of negative intergroup interactions (see CNN Student News, 2002; Shi-pler, 1997).

1.2. Confronting discrimination

Researchers have recently begun to assess what factors might influence stigmatized group mem-bers� direct confrontation with the person or persons who are perceived to be discriminating. Thefindings of these investigations indicate that there are likely negative consequences for such publicattributions of discrimination (Dobbs, 1998; Kaiser & Miller, 2001). The presence of supportiveothers, however, decreases some of these costs. For instance, Stangor, Swim, Van-Allen, andSechrist (2002) found that Black participants were more likely to report discrimination when inthe presence of another Black individual. The authors contended that the presence of fellow stig-matized group members may provide social support and a buffer (because the other is of equalstatus) from the social cost of the public reporting of discrimination.However, Blacks are not necessarily supportive of confrontation. Indeed, a comparison of

Blacks� and Whites� impressions of Blacks who confront racism indicates that they tend to seethe confronter similarly (i.e., as less likeable but more competent than a non-confronter; Stangoret al., 2005). Interestingly, it is also possible that there is variation in Black individuals� acceptanceof the use of confrontation for themselves and others. More specifically, those who are less likely toconclude that discrimination is a problem in general or less likely to label particular types of inci-dents as racist may feel that confrontation is less necessary. Thus, the JLS factor associated withexpectations of racist behavior among Whites may be a significant predictor of Black responsesto intergroup interaction involving perceived racism and confronting racism.

1.3. Black anti-White discrimination

A second Black intergroup response that has received minimal empirical attention involvesBlack anti-White discriminatory activity. For example, there have been several incidents involving

106107108109110111112113114115116117118

119

120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135

136

137

138139140141142143

4 J.D. Johnson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

PAID 3144 No. of Pages 11

22 November 2005 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F

White employees at Black universities making allegations that they have been denied advance-ment and promotions due to their race (CNN Student News, 2002). There is a possibility thatBlack anti-White attitudes, especially those involving negative responses towards Whites, mayhave a significant influence on Black responses to anti-White discrimination. Monteith and Spicer(2000) contend that Blacks can be aware of the existence of White anti-Black racism and yet notrespond or think negatively towards Whites due to their race. To support this contention, John-son and Lecci (2003) found that expectations of White anti-Black discrimination and negativeoutgroup-directed beliefs/behaviors towards Whites were separate and distinct factors on theirscale of Black anti-White bias. Moreover, only negative outgroup-directed attitudes/behaviorsJLS were related to ones� engagement in overt negative responses towards Whites (as assessedby peers; Johnson & Lecci, 2003). While these findings indicate that negative outgroup-directedattitudes/behaviors might be associated with the acceptance of unfair negative treatment ofWhites, their relation to overt and direct anti-White discrimination has not been assessed.

1.4. The present study

The goals of the present study were twofold. The first was to extend the intergroup relationsliterature by evaluating the predictive validity of the JLS on the perceptual and behavioral relatedintergroup responses of a community sample of Blacks, as the predictive validity of the JLS hasyet to be established for non-college students. An over reliance on college students is a majorshortcoming of the limited research on Black intergroup responses, as it is possible that collegestudents might have a more complex view of anti-White attitudes relative to the general commu-nity. If this were the case, the four JLS subscales might be less predictive of various outcomeswhen evaluated in other samples. Therefore, we will compare the predictive validity of the JLSin a university and community sample of Black adults.The second goal of the present study is to evaluate the predictive validity of the JLS on inter-

group responses that involve perceived racism (i.e., racist attributions in ambiguously racism inter-actions, confrontations with perceived racists) and the negative treatment of Whites (i.e., anti-White discrimination). Although previous research has demonstrated the predictive utility of theJLS regarding perceived racism (Johnson & Lecci, 2003), the multi-factorial composition of theJLS should also allow for the predictive validity of other outcome measures that examine the indi-vidual�s anticipated response to negative behavioral interactions with a majority group member.

UN

C2. Method

2.1. Participants

Two samples were recruited for the present investigation: A college student and an adult com-munity sample. Participants in the college student sample were 101 Black undergraduate students(largely sophomores and juniors) enrolled at a predominantly Black liberal arts college in thesoutheastern United States. Participants (76 females, 19 males, 6 failed to report gender) rangedin age from 21 to 45 years (M = 28.1, SD = 5.3). The data from the college sample were collectedin the fall of 2001 from three classes, and the participants were remunerated with class credit.

144145146147148149150151152153

154

155156157158159160161162163164165166167

168

169170171172173174175176177178179180181182

J.D. Johnson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 5

PAID 3144 No. of Pages 11

22 November 2005 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS

UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F

The adult community sample consists of 121 Black participants (82 females, 39 males) drawnfrom a city in the southeastern United States in the spring and fall of 2002. Participants were19–68 years of age (M = 44.0, SD = 11.2) and their education ranged from the tenth grade(3.4%) to those having obtained more than one graduate degree (1.7%). These participants wererecruited through local community leaders and remunerated with a small financial incentive.When comparing the two samples, it is important to note that almost two-thirds of the com-

munity sample (63.8%) had taken some college classes or obtained an undergraduate degree,thereby making the two samples similar with regard to education. There was, however, a signif-icant difference with regard to age, with the community sample being substantially older (differ-ence = 15.9, t = 13.9, df = 178, p < .0001).

2.2. Measures

Johnson–Lecci Scale (JLS: Johnson & Lecci, 2003). Participants completed this 20-item self-report inventory that assesses anti-White attitudes in Blacks. Responses to the face valid itemsare based on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly agree) to 3 (strongly disagree). Basedon confirmatory factor analysis, the data achieved a good fit with a four factor model (the averagefit indices exceed .90, the v2 to df ratio is 1.7:1, and the root mean square residual <.05), and asignificantly better fit than the one factor model (Johnson & Lecci, 2003). The four JLS subscalescores of Ingroup-directed stigmatization/discriminatory expectations (Cronbach�s a = .89), Out-group-directed negative beliefs (a = .61), Negative views toward ingroup–outgroup relations(a = .65), and Negative verbal expression towards the outgroup (a = .79), have an average Cron-bach�s a = .74 and test–retest coefficient = .80 (Johnson & Lecci, 2003). The JLS subscales havebeen shown to predict perceived racism, converge with collateral assessments of bias, and exhibitdiscriminant validity with regard to other outgroups (e.g., biases with regard to age, gender, phys-ical disabilities, etc.); thereby uniquely predicting Black–White relations (Johnson & Lecci, 2003).

2.3. Procedure

Participants were asked to take part in two brief studies. First, all participants read a passagethat was entitled, ‘‘Decision-Making Processes,’’ which described decision-making in a variety ofsettings. The passages included both racially significant and race unrelated evaluations. The raceunrelated evaluations focused on other discriminatory issues (e.g., a teenager losing her prom datebecause she gained weight, a woman losing a job to a less qualified male, a visually impaired malebeing fired despite good performance) and were used to disguise the target group that we weremost interested in studying. The racially significant passages were 3–9 sentences in length, pro-vided some contextual information, and involved perceived discrimination, acceptance of directconfrontations with perceived racists, and acceptance of Black anti-White discrimination. Afterreading the passages, participants were asked to respond to statements associated with those pas-sages using a four point scale (A-strongly agree, B-agree, C-disagree, D-strongly disagree). In allcases, the letters were linearly transformed into a 1–4 scale with higher scores indicating greaterperceived racism, greater acceptance of direct agreement, and greater acceptance of anti-Whitediscrimination.

183184185186187188

189190191192193194195196197

198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214

215

216

217218219220

6 J.D. Johnson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

PAID 3144 No. of Pages 11

22 November 2005 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS

OR

REC

TED

PR

OO

F

2.3.1. Perceived discrimination passagesThe first passage involves two Black men being stopped by two White police officers for trav-

eling 3 miles over the speed limit. The second passage involves a Black employee who lost a pro-motion to a White employee with fewer years of experience. Participants were asked to rate theextent to which these events occurred because the targets were Black using the above-describedscale. The two items were averaged to create a measure of perceived discrimination.

2.3.2. Acceptance of direct confrontation with perceived racistsThe first passage involves a Black couple angrily accusing a hostess of racism after apparently

being passed over for a table in favor of a White couple. The second passage involves a Black manangrily accusing a department store employee of racism after being asked for identification to usea credit card, when a similar request was not made of a White customer. For both passages, par-ticipants were asked to rate whether (1) the Black individual�s actions were appropriate and jus-tified, and (2) they would have acted in a similar manner. Item responses were averaged to createoutcome measures assessing approval of the target�s actions and likelihood of respondingsimilarly.

2.3.3. Acceptance of Black anti-White discrimination passagesThe first passage involves a Black radio DJ who did not give a prize to a White winner in favor

of a Black caller. The second passage involves a Black CEO who was not seriously considering thecompany�s White applicants for a management position. Participants again answered two ques-tions after each passage to rate whether (1) the Black individual�s actions were appropriate andjustified, and (2) they would have acted in a similar manner. Item responses were averaged to cre-ate outcome measures assessing approval of the target�s actions, and likelihood of respondingsimilarly.(Note: There are number of notable distinctions between the JLS items and the dependent vari-

ables used in this study. Specifically, the item content differs, items from the ingroup stigmatiza-tion and discrimination expectations subscale involve general expectations of discrimination,whereas the perceived racism scenarios involve specific ambiguously racist scenarios, and noneof the subscales of the JLS contain items that measure perceptions of direct confrontation to per-ceived racism and/or blatant anti-White discrimination.)Following the administration of these passages, participants took part in a separate study enti-

tled ‘‘Group Dynamics,’’ which asks a series of questions regarding various groups (i.e., lawyers,environmentalists, etc.), and the JLS items were embedded among these questions.

UN3. Results

3.1. Comparing anti-White attitudes in the college and adult community samples

In order to directly compare the Black anti-White attitudes of a community sample to those ofcollege students, t-tests were employed for the subscales of the JLS and the outcome measures (seeTable 1). The results indicate that the community sample obtained lower scores on all four JLSsubscales. That is, overall the college student sample, comprised of individuals attending a pre-

DPR

OO

F

221222223224225226227228229230231

232

233234235236237238239240241

Table 1JLS mean scores and outcome measures in a college student sample and an adult community sample

College studentsample (N = 101)

Communitysample (N = 121)

t-Value

Mean (SE) Mean (SE)

Subscales of the JLS

1. Discriminatory expectations 3.12 (.051) 2.83 (.059) 3.80***

2. Negative beliefs about Whites 2.48 (.056) 2.29 (.053) 2.38*

3. Negative views about Black/White relations 2.11 (.070) 1.94 (.055) 1.904. Negative verbal expressions toward Whites 2.66 (.075) 2.45 (.057) 2.29*

Dependent measures

Perceived discrimination 3.40 (.054) 2.87 (.066) 6.15***

Acceptance of confrontingApproval 3.09 (.071) 2.88 (.066) 2.15*

Similar response 3.09 (.072) 2.73 (.073) 3.50***

Acceptance of anti-White discriminationApproval 2.06 (.105) 1.54 (.066) 4.22***

Similar response 2.09 (.104) 1.62 (.068) 3.85***

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. All t-tests reflect two-tailed tests of significance.

J.D. Johnson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 7

PAID 3144 No. of Pages 11

22 November 2005 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS

UN

CO

RR

EC

TEdominantly Black college, evidences stronger anti-White bias relative to those in the adult com-munity sample. To examine the role of age, JLS subscales were correlated with age across thetwo samples (N = 222). Despite the fact that the community and college student samples differedsignificantly with respect to age, age was not correlated with any of the JLS scores. The age of therespondents did, however, correlate with the outcome measures of perceived discrimination(r = �.19, p = .005) and acceptance of direct confrontation with perceived racists (r = �.42,p > .001), with younger respondents being more likely to endorse items representing perceived dis-crimination and supporting the direct confrontation of perceived racists. When examining thecombined data for the two samples, education did not relate to any of the JLS scores. Thus,although there are differences between the two samples in anti-White attitudes as measured bythe JLS, these differences do not appear to be due to age or education.

3.2. Predicting perceptions of racism

Separate regression analyses were employed for each dependent variable. In the first step ofeach analysis, a coded vector indicating the participant�s sample was entered (college sample = 0,community sample = 1). In the second step, the four JLS subscales were entered. The standard-ized beta weights from the regression analyses are presented in Table 2.Participants in the college sample were more likely than those in the community sample to de-

fine behaviors as discriminatory (b = �.27, p < .0001). Consistent with results from Johnson andLecci (2003), the stronger the discriminatory expectations of the Black participants the more likelythey were to indicate that the behaviors described in these first two scenarios were discriminatory(b = .39, p < .0001).

PR

OO

F

242

243244245246247248249250251

252

253254255256257258259260261262263264

Table 2Standardized beta weights predicting perceived racism, acceptance of confronting, and acceptance of anti-Whitediscrimination

Dependent variable Sample Discriminatoryexpectations

JLS subscales Negative verbalexpressions towardWhites

Negative beliefsabout Whites

Negative viewsabout Black/Whiterelations

Perceived discrimination

Acceptance of confronting �.27**** .39**** .08 .06 �.06Approval �.08 .23*** .09 �.02 �.05Similar response �.16* .22*** .14 .01 �.05

Acceptance of anti-White discrimination

Approval �.19*** .00 .13 .06 .39****

Similar response �.16** .05 .17* .04 .32****

Note: Sample: 0 = college sample, 1 = community sample.*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .005, ****p < .0001. p-Values reflect two-tailed tests of significance.

8 J.D. Johnson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

PAID 3144 No. of Pages 11

22 November 2005 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS

UN

CO

RR

EC

TED3.3. Predicting acceptance of direct confrontation with perceived racists

College students and community members did not differ in their tendency to approve of (i.e., tosee such behavior as appropriate and justifiable) confronting racist behavior (b = �.08, ns), butthey did differ in their reported likelihood of responding to racist behavior (b = �.16, p < .05).Specifically, those in the college sample were more likely to report that they would confront a per-ceived racist relative to those in the community sample.One subscale from the JLS predicted approval of confronting racists. Those who evidenced

greater discriminatory expectations were more likely to indicate that they approved of confrontingracist behavior (b = .23, p < .005) and these individuals also reported being more likely to evi-dence a similar response towards racists (b = .22, p < .005).

3.4. Predicting acceptance of Black anti-White discrimination

College students and community members differed in their tendency to approve of Black anti-White discriminatory behavior (b = �.19, p < .005) and they also differed in their reported likeli-hood of responding in a similar manner (b = �.16, p < .01). Specifically, those in the college sam-ple were more likely to indicate that they approve of anti-White discrimination and that theywould respond in a similar manner.One subscale from the JLS predicted the approval of Black anti-White discrimination. Specif-

ically, the greater the score on the JLS measure of negative verbal expressions towards Whites,the more likely the individual would indicate approval of Black anti-White discrimination(b = .39, p < .0001). Finally, those evidencing greater negative verbal expressions towards Whites(b = .32, p < .0001) and those evidencing greater negative beliefs about Whites (b = .17, p < .05)were more likely to want to engage in a similar response when faced with Black anti-Whitediscrimination.

265266267

268

269270271272273274275276277278

279

280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303

J.D. Johnson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 9

PAID 3144 No. of Pages 11

22 November 2005 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS

PR

OO

F

Importantly, the findings for the JLS emerged after controlling for the effects of sample, and allof the above findings emerged even after statistically controlling for both gender and socialdesirability.

3.5. Examining interactions

Interaction effects were also examined between the JLS subscales and the sample. All interac-tion terms were entered into the regression equation following the JLS and sample variables. Theinteractions for perceived discrimination and the acceptance of confronting (both approval of andintention to respond similarly) failed to achieve significance. However, the interaction betweensample and the JLS factor of Negative verbal expressions toward Whites was statistically signif-icant for the participants� approval of (b = �1.91, p < .0001) and intent to engage in (b = �1.80,p < .0001) similar anti-White discrimination. A follow-up analysis within each sample illustratesthat the JLS subscale strongly predicts the approval of (b = .73, p < .0001) and intent to engagein (b = .64, p < .0001) similar anti-White discrimination in college students, but it does not predictsuch behavior in the community sample.

UN

CO

RR

EC

TED4. General discussion

Although research has focused on the complexities of White anti-Black attitudes in intergrouprelations (Dovidio, 2001; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986, 1998; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), the presentfindings indicate that greater attention should be given to the complexities of Black anti-Whiteattitudes. The present study demonstrated that intergroup attitudes involving expectations of rac-ism predict perceived racism and acceptance of direct confrontation with a racist, but they did notpredict acceptance of anti-White discrimination. This provides empirical support for Monteithand Spicer�s (2000) contention that Black sensitivity to racism may not be directly related to glo-bal negative feelings towards Whites. The present study extends the literature by demonstratingthat such sensitivity is also not associated with negative responses towards Whites. Moreover,the results imply that direct confrontations with perceived racists may be due to defensive moti-vations (responding to perceived discrimination) and not based on hostility towards Whites.Finally, the two predictors of anti-White discrimination involved attitudes associated with out-group-directed negative responses. These particular findings suggest that blatant anti-White dis-crimination is probably greatly influenced by negative feelings and/or hostility directed atWhites, but not sensitivity to racism. (Note: The stronger predictive validity of some JLS subscalesmay be due to their higher internal reliability).In addition, there were a number of interesting differences between the college sample and com-

munity sample on both the nature of their anti-White attitudes and intergroup responses towardsWhites. When compared to the community sample, those in college were more likely to endorsebeliefs of White racism, express negative beliefs about Whites, have negative views about Black–White relationships, and make negative verbal expressions towards Whites. The results also indi-cated that relative to community participants, college students were more likely to perceive racismand report a greater willingness to directly confront perceived racists. Similarly, college studentswere more likely to accept and engage in anti-White discriminatory behavior and their anti-White

304305306307

308

309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327

328

329

330

331332333334335336337338339

10 J.D. Johnson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

PAID 3144 No. of Pages 11

22 November 2005 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS

CTE

DPR

OO

F

attitudes were more predictive of such behavior relative to those in the community sample. How-ever, the differences do not appear to be due to age or education (i.e., the differences persist afterstatistically controlling for these variables), but may instead reflect the views of Blacks who attendpredominantly Black schools.

4.1. Implications for the attribution of discrimination literature and future research

Previous research has examined factors that both minimize (Kaiser & Miller, 2001; Major et al.,2002) and facilitate (Stangor et al., 2002) the probability that stigmatized group members willmake public attributions of discrimination. For example, Stangor and colleagues contend thatfacilitation may occur because a stigmatized group member expects the fellow group memberto provide emotional or informational support. The present findings indicate that the actual de-gree of support for public attributions of discrimination will vary as a function of intercrop atti-tudes regarding expectations of racism. While previous research has shown that individualvariability in Black anti-White beliefs tends to influence perceptions of racist behavior (Johnson& Lecci, 2003), the present study extends the research by demonstrating that variability in thesebeliefs can also influence perceptions of the appropriate responses to such behavior.Future research could consider whether Black anti-White biases would also predict responses to

positive intergroup responses (e.g., when a Black person has given a White person assistance), aswell as conducting a comparative evaluation of the predictive validity of racial identification andanti-White attitudes with regard to perceived racism and acceptance of anti-White discrimination.Moreover, it is important to note that our measures of acceptance of direct confrontation areactually assessing the acceptance of hostile confrontation. It is therefore possible that acceptancemay have varied depending on the form of confrontation. At any rate, the present findings extendthe validation of the JLS and emphasize the importance of considering individual differences inpredicting Black intergroup responses.

RR5. Uncited reference

Fiske and Stevens (1993).

UN

CO

References

Biernat, M., & Crandall, C. S. (1999). Racial attitudes. In S. R. Phillip & J. P. Robinson, et al. (Eds.), Measures of

political attitudes (Vol. 2, pp. 297–411). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.Brigham, J. C. (1994). College students� racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(23), 1933–1967.Brigham, J. C. (1977). The structure of racial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977(3), 651–658.Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90(2), 105–126.CNN Student News (2002). Black colleges wrestle with discrimination claims. March 21, 2002.Devine, P. G. (1995). Getting hooked on research in social psychology: Examples from eyewitness identification and

prejudice. In G. G. Brannigan & M. R. Merrens (Eds.), The social psychologists: Research adventures. McGraw-Hill

series in social psychology (pp. 161–184). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376

J.D. Johnson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 11

PAID 3144 No. of Pages 11

22 November 2005 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F

Dobbs, M. F. (1998). Managing diversity: The department of energy initiative. Public Personnel Management, 27(2),161–174.

Dovidio, J. F. (2001). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The third wave. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4),829–849.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (Eds.). (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,Inc.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The causes, consequences, andchallenges of aversive racism. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the

response (pp. 3–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. E., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. (2002). Why can�t we just get along? Interpersonal biases

and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(2), 88–102.Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Reducing contemporary prejudice: Combating explicit and

implicit bias at the individual and intergroup level. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination. The

Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 137–163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What�s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S.

Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society. Claremont symposium on applied social

psychology (pp. 173–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). The aversive form of racism. In C. Stangor (Ed.), Stereotypes and prejudice:

Essential readings. Key readings in social psychology (pp. 289–304). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Hyers, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1998). A comparison of the experiences of dominant and minority group members during

an intergroup encounter. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1(2), 143–163.Johnson, J. D., & Lecci, L. (2003). Assessing anti-White attitudes and predicting perceived racism: The Johnson–Lecci

scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 299–312.Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254–263.Monteith, M. J., & Spicer, C. V. (2000). Contents and correlates of Whites and Blacks racial attitudes. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 36(2), 125–154.Sears, D. O. (1998). Racism and politics in the United States. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting

racism: The problem and the response (pp. 76–100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Shipler, D. (1997). A country of strangers: Blacks and Whites in America. New York: Knopf.Stangor, C., Swim, J. K., Sechrist, G., Decoster, J., Van Allen, K., & Ottenbreit, A. (2005). Ask, answer, & announce:

Three stages in perceiving and responding to discrimination. European Review of Social Psychology, 14, 277–311.Stangor, C., Swim, J. K., Van-Allen, K. L., & Sechrist, G. B. (2002). Reporting discrimination in public and private

contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 69–74.Sue, S. (1999). Science, ethnicity, and bias: Where have we gone wrong? American Psychologist, 54(12), 1070–1077.Swim, J. K., & Stangor, C. (Eds.). (1998). Prejudice: The target�s perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

UN

CO