Interracial Perception, Affect and Behavior Thomas E. Malloy Rhode Island College NSF Sponsored Conference University of Connecticut SRM and Inter-group.

Interracial Perception, Affect Interracial Perception, Affect and Behaviorand Behavior

Thomas E. MalloyThomas E. MalloyRhode Island CollegeRhode Island College

NSF Sponsored ConferenceNSF Sponsored ConferenceUniversity of ConnecticutUniversity of Connecticut

SRM and Inter-group ProcessesSRM and Inter-group ProcessesMay 13-15 2007May 13-15 2007

Co-AuthorCo-Author

Tiina Ristikari Tiina Ristikari

Oxford UniversityOxford University

Funding: Funding:

Rhode Island College Grant Rhode Island College Grant

American Psychological Association American Psychological Association

Eastern Psychological AssociationEastern Psychological Association

History and TheoryHistory and Theory

1968 Kerner Commission reported the United States was “moving 1968 Kerner Commission reported the United States was “moving toward two societies, on black, one white – separate and unequal”toward two societies, on black, one white – separate and unequal”

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

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

““fundamental questions remain unanswered about interracial fundamental questions remain unanswered about interracial contact in … casual encounters and intense relationshipscontact in … casual encounters and intense relationships” ”

Social Psychological TheorySocial Psychological Theory

Stephan & Stephan’s (1985; 2000)Stephan & Stephan’s (1985; 2000)Integrated Threat TheoryIntegrated Threat Theory

- anxiety and negative affect- anxiety and negative affect - threat of domination and control- threat of domination and control

- fear of negative stereotyping- fear of negative stereotyping- rejection by the in-group (acting “White” - rejection by the in-group (acting “White”

or like a “Banana”or like a “Banana”

Whites’ Responses to BlacksWhites’ Responses to Blacks

Stressful and uncomfortable (Ickes, 1984)Stressful and uncomfortable (Ickes, 1984)Increased physiological arousal (Littleford et al., 2005; Increased physiological arousal (Littleford et al., 2005; Blascovich et al., 2001; Mendes et al., 2002)Blascovich et al., 2001; Mendes et al., 2002)Increased activity of amygdala in response to Black vs. Increased activity of amygdala in response to Black vs. White faces (Phelps et al., 2000)White faces (Phelps et al., 2000)

Impairment of cognitive functioning on Stroop Color Impairment of cognitive functioning on Stroop Color Naming task following interaction with a Black person Naming task following interaction with a Black person

relative to a White person (Richeson & Trawalter, 2005)relative to a White person (Richeson & Trawalter, 2005) Concerned with appearing prejudiced (Dovidio & Concerned with appearing prejudiced (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998) Gaertner, 1998) ““Automatic cognition” (Keltner et al., 2003)Automatic cognition” (Keltner et al., 2003)

Blacks’ Responses to WhitesBlacks’ Responses to Whites

Stereotype Threat (Steele, 1997)Stereotype Threat (Steele, 1997)Stigma Consciousness (Pinel, 1999)Stigma Consciousness (Pinel, 1999)Negation of Negative Stereotypes (Crocker et Negation of Negative Stereotypes (Crocker et al., 1998)al., 1998)Disengagement when stereotyped (Osborne, Disengagement when stereotyped (Osborne, 2004)2004)Heightened attention to the other (Fiske, 1993; Heightened attention to the other (Fiske, 1993; Frable et al., 1990)Frable et al., 1990)““Controlled cognition” and attention to threats Controlled cognition” and attention to threats (Keltner et al., 2003)(Keltner et al., 2003)

Face to Face Interactions of Face to Face Interactions of Black and White MenBlack and White Men

-- 20 minute unstructured -- 20 minute unstructured interactions interactions -- 2 outgroup partners-- 2 outgroup partners-- “weak psychological situation”-- “weak psychological situation”

DesignDesign

34 Blacks and 34 Whites (17 4 person groups)34 Blacks and 34 Whites (17 4 person groups)

Asymmetric Block DesignAsymmetric Block Design

B1 B2 W1 W2B1 B2 W1 W2B1 x xB1 x xB2 x xB2 x xW1 x xW1 x xW2 x xW2 x x

20 minute unstructured interactions20 minute unstructured interactions

MeasurementsMeasurements

5 Indicators of each of Big Five Factors5 Indicators of each of Big Five Factors

Metaperceptions (MP) Trait FactorsMetaperceptions (MP) Trait Factors

3 indicators of Quality of Interaction Factor3 indicators of Quality of Interaction Factor

3 indicators of Affect and MP Affect Factors3 indicators of Affect and MP Affect Factors

Stigma Consciousness & Social Dominance Stigma Consciousness & Social Dominance Orientation (trait measures)Orientation (trait measures)

Verbal and Non-Verbal behavior coded from Verbal and Non-Verbal behavior coded from videotapesvideotapes

(speaking time, short back channels, long back channels, questions asked, smiles, (speaking time, short back channels, long back channels, questions asked, smiles, laughs – one Black and one White coder with all reliabilities greater than .85)laughs – one Black and one White coder with all reliabilities greater than .85)

Interracial Trait PerceptionsInterracial Trait PerceptionsTable 1Trait 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*

Factors1 Extroversion2 Good Natured3 Conscientiousness4 Emotional Adjustment5 Intelligence

Interracial MetaperceptionsInterracial MetaperceptionsTable 2Table 2Trait Metaperceptions: Component Variances Trait Metaperceptions: Component Variances

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

Factors1 Extroversion2 Good Natured3 Conscientiousness4 Emotional Adjustment5 Intelligence

Quality of Interaction and AffectQuality of Interaction and Affect

Table 3Table 3

Construct Variances: Affect, MP Affect, and Quality of Interaction Construct Variances: Affect, MP Affect, and Quality of Interaction

Perceiver Target RelationshipPerceiver Target Relationship

B W B W B WB W B W B W

Quality of InteractionQuality of Interaction .20 .35 .13 .00 .53 .19 .20 .35 .13 .00 .53 .19

MP Positive Affect FactorMP Positive Affect Factor .20 .39 .23 .00 .43 .10 .20 .39 .23 .00 .43 .10

Positive Affect FactorPositive Affect Factor .19 .26 .11 .00 .46 .22 .19 .26 .11 .00 .46 .22

Interracial BehaviorInterracial Behavior

Table 4Table 4Dyadic Behavior: Means and Component VariancesDyadic Behavior: Means and Component Variances Behavior Actor Partner Relationship/ErrorBehavior Actor Partner Relationship/Error B W B W B W B W B W B W SpeakingSpeaking Time Time .32 .00 .00 .00 .68 1.00 .32 .00 .00 .00 .68 1.00 QuestionsQuestions 00 .03 .00 .00 1.00 .97 00 .03 .00 .00 1.00 .97 SBCSBC .51* .37 .09 .01 .40 .62 .51* .37 .09 .01 .40 .62 LBCLBC .61* .00 .33 .00 .06 1.00 .61* .00 .33 .00 .06 1.00 SmilesSmiles .20 .55 .00 .04 .80 .41 .20 .55 .00 .04 .80 .41 LaughsLaughs .34* .69 .00 .02 .66 .30 .34* .69 .00 .02 .66 .30

Table 5Table 5Individual Differences and Actor Effects Individual Differences and Actor Effects in Behaviorin Behavior

Back Channel Back Channel Individual Difference Speaking Time ConstructIndividual Difference Speaking Time Construct B W B W B W B W

Stigma ConsciousnessStigma Consciousness .77* -- -.45* -- .77* -- -.45* -- Social DominanceSocial Dominance -.55* -- -.83* -- -.55* -- -.83* --

General Findings Study 1General Findings Study 1

Blacks uniquely differentiate interactions Blacks uniquely differentiate interactions with and traits of Whiteswith and traits of Whites

Whites use stereotypes to evaluate Whites use stereotypes to evaluate interactions with and traits of Blacksinteractions with and traits of Blacks

Maybe Whites don’t differentiate Maybe Whites don’t differentiate interactions with any ethnic group interactions with any ethnic group (Possible but not plausible)(Possible but not plausible)

Study 2Study 2Asocial Interracial PerceptionsAsocial Interracial Perceptions

Used “type generation paradigm” Used “type generation paradigm” developed by Linville et al. (1996)developed by Linville et al. (1996)

Blacks and White assigned randomly to Blacks and White assigned randomly to

in-group or out-group conditionsin-group or out-group conditions

Judge generates between 2 and 10 “types Judge generates between 2 and 10 “types of persons” from the group of persons” from the group

Each type is rated on 25 traits (5 indicators Each type is rated on 25 traits (5 indicators of Big Five factors of study 1)of Big Five factors of study 1)

Analysis Analysis

Each judge generates a matrix with Each judge generates a matrix with dimensions of types (2-10) by factor (5)dimensions of types (2-10) by factor (5)

Estimate type variance, factor variance, and Estimate type variance, factor variance, and interaction variance (error) componentsinteraction variance (error) components

Planned Contrasts for Blacks and Whites Planned Contrasts for Blacks and Whites in-group and out-group judgmentsin-group and out-group judgments

DV = type and factor variance components DV = type and factor variance components

Idiographic Variance ComponentsIdiographic Variance Components

Variance Component Psychological Interpretation Variance Component Psychological Interpretation

Category Type the differentiation of the types on a set of traitsCategory Type the differentiation of the types on a set of traits

Personality Trait the differentiation among traits when rating thePersonality Trait the differentiation among traits when rating the

set of types set of types

Type x Trait Error Type x Trait Error

Mean Type and Factor VariancesMean Type and Factor Variances

Race of JudgeRace of Judge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Blacks WhitesBlacks Whites Target Category Target CategoryTarget Category Target Category ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- Black White Black White Black White Black White Type Variance 19.37 Type Variance 19.37 = = 17.39 9.31 17.39 9.31 << 19.08 19.08 Factor Variance 2.79 Factor Variance 2.79 == 2.86 2.28 2.86 2.28 == 1.79 1.79

Entries are unweighted variance components in a 10 point metric.Entries are unweighted variance components in a 10 point metric.

Identical results for weighted and unweighted variancesIdentical results for weighted and unweighted variances

General Key FindingsGeneral Key Findings

Blacks differentiate interaction quality, Blacks differentiate interaction quality, affect for partners, and traits of White affect for partners, and traits of White partners to a greater extent than Whites partners to a greater extent than Whites differentiate Blacksdifferentiate Blacks

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

- -

Theoretical ImplicationsTheoretical Implications

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

Each has different goals in a stressful social interactionEach has different goals in a stressful social interaction

Whites:Whites:- occupied with appearing egalitarian and non-racist- occupied with appearing egalitarian and non-racist- focused on the novelty of the situation – Whites - focused on the novelty of the situation – Whites outnumber Blacks 14-1 in Rhode Islandoutnumber Blacks 14-1 in Rhode Island- actively monitoring own responses with less attention to - actively monitoring own responses with less attention to

the interaction partnerthe interaction partner- use stereotypes when making judgments - use stereotypes when making judgments

Theoretical Implications:Theoretical Implications:ContinuedContinued

BlacksBlacks

- occupied with negating negative stereotypes- occupied with negating negative stereotypes

- When concerned with being stereotyped enact - When concerned with being stereotyped enact behavior to produce a positive social climatebehavior to produce a positive social climate

- Both aware of the status difference of the dyad - Both aware of the status difference of the dyad members in a racist society: more acceptance of members in a racist society: more acceptance of the status difference is associated with less the status difference is associated with less responsive behavior (talking time, back responsive behavior (talking time, back channels) or a pattern of disengagement.channels) or a pattern of disengagement.

Applied ImplicationsApplied Implications

Environments where Blacks and Whites interact Environments where Blacks and Whites interact should be structured so that stereotype threat is should be structured so that stereotype threat is eliminatedeliminatedFor example, an “Upward Bound” remedial For example, an “Upward Bound” remedial education program implies that one is low status education program implies that one is low status and at risk for failureand at risk for failureAlternatively, “Talent Development Programs” Alternatively, “Talent Development Programs” that emphasize cooperative learning (e.g., that emphasize cooperative learning (e.g., jigsaw classrooms) may enhance outcomes for jigsaw classrooms) may enhance outcomes for minority and majority studentsminority and majority students