Content uploaded by Len Lecci
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Len Lecci on Feb 10, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
UNCORRECTED
PROOF
1
2
Predicting perceived racism and acceptance of negative
3
behavioral intergroup responses: Validating the JLS in a
4
college and community sample of Blacks
5
James D. Johnson
a
, Len Lecci
a,
*
, Janet Swim
b
6
a
Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 South College Road,
7
Wilmington, NC 28403-5612, United States
8
b
Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, 515 Moore Building,
9
University Park PA, 16802, United States
10
Received 21 March 2005; received in revised form 1 August 2005; accepted 19 September 2005
11
12
Abstract
13 The present study provides a replication and extension of the validity of a measure of anti-White atti-
14 tudes in Blacks. A college and community sample of Black participants completed the recently developed
15 Johnson–Lecci Scale (JLS) and subsequently made responses to scenarios involving ambiguously racist
16 behavior, direct confrontation with a perceived racist, and Black anti-White discrimination. The results
17 indicated that Black intergroup attitudes involving expectations of racism factors did predict perceived rac-
18
ism in the ambiguously racist scenario and acceptance of direct confrontation with a racist, but they did not
19 predict acceptance of anti-White discrimination. However, anti-White discrimination was predicted by the
20 attitudes associated with outgroup-directed negative responses. Moreover, the findings indicate that there
21 are a number of differences between the college and community samples on both the nature of their anti-
22 White attitudes and intergroup responses towards Whites.
23 Ó 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
24
Keywords: Anti-White bias; JLS; Confronting; Sensitivity to racism
25
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 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: johnsonj@uncw.edu (J.D. Johnson), leccil@uncw.edu (L. Lecci).
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
PAID 3144 No. of Pages 11
22 November 2005 Disk Used
ARTICLE IN PRESS
UNCORRECTED
PROOF
26
1. Introduction
27
Social psychologists have paid a great deal of attention to WhitesÕ anti-Black attitudes and
28
behaviors with regard to the content and structure of these beliefs (Biernat & Crandall, 1999),
29
changes in endorsement of beliefs over time (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Sears, 1998), WhitesÕ dis-
30
crimination against African Americans (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002), and
31
reducing prejudice (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2000). There are two major consequences
32
of this focus on White attitudes. First, we know relatively little about BlacksÕ anti-White attitudes.
33
Second, Blacks are typically portrayed as passive targets of WhitesÕ attitudes and behavior (e.g.,
34
Swim & Stangor, 1998). As such, little is known about BlacksÕ contribution to intergroup inter-
35
actions. Moreover, what we do know can be characterized primarily as the examination of intra-
36
personal factors associated with WhitesÕ anti-Black attitudes. However, a full understanding of
37
intergroup relationships between Blacks and Whites requires that we know how both contribute
38
to these relationships (Devine, 1995; Hyers & Swim, 1998).
39
1.1. Black attitudes towards Whites
40
Although researchers had previously engaged in some assessment of Black intergroup attitudes
41
(see Brigham, 1977), it was not until 1994 that the first formal scale was published to assess Black
42
racial attitudes towards Whites. Items for this measure were largely drawn from previously pub-
43
lished attitude scales designed to measure WhitesÕ anti-Black attitudes (with racial designations
44
reversed) and augmented with items generated from round table discussions among biracial pan-
45
els (Brigham, 1994). Although this initial empirical analysis was an important contribution to the
46
literature, ideally, the study of anti-White attitudes held among Blacks would involve the use of
47
Black respondents to generate an original pool of items that reflects their everyday experience of
48
anti-White attitudes, rather than borrowing items from anti-Black racial attitude measures. The
49
co-opting of items developed to evaluate White anti-Black attitudes is problematic, as there
50
may be meaningful differences between the anti-Black attitudes held among Whites, and the
51
anti-White attitudes held among Blacks (see also Brigham, 1994). Indeed, social scientists other-
52
wise run the risk of drawing premature conclusions regarding the intergroup generalizability of
53
various psychological processes (Sue, 1999).
54
In an effort to provide a more specialized and meaningful assessment of BlacksÕ racial attitudes
55
towards Whites, Johnson and Lecci (2003) developed a four factor scale that directly measured
56
Black anti-White bias. The Johnson–Lecci Scale (JLS) was generated from the everyday experi-
57
ences of Black respondents using an act-frequency approach (Buss & Craik, 1983), and the scale
58
configuration was empirically derived and cross-validated in an independent sample using confir-
59
matory factor analysis. The resulting JLS factors (subscales) were: (a) Ingroup-directed stigmati-
60
zation and discriminatory expectations (e.g., I believe that most Whites really do support the ideas
61
and thoughts of racist political groups.); (b) Outgroup-directed negative beliefs (e.g., I believe that
62
the success of a White person is due to their color), (c) Negative views toward ingroup–outgroup
63
relations (e.g., I have referred to mixed couples as ‘‘sell outs’’) and (d) Negative verbal expression
64
towards the outgroup (e.g., I have insulted a White person). The subscales of the JLS were shown
65
to predict the perceptions of discrimination in ambiguously racist scenarios (i.e., perceived racism)
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
UNCORRECTED
PROOF
66
and converged with peer evaluations of the participantsÕ anti-White attitudes (Johnson & Lecci,
67
2003).
68
Although the subscales of the Johnson–Lecci scale demonstrate that Black intergroup attitudes
69
involve both perceptual (e.g., Ingroup-directed stigmatization and discriminatory expectations)
70
and outgroup-directed beliefs/behaviors components (e.g., negative verbal expression towards
71
the outgroup), it is not clear whether such complexity will have implications for intergroup re-
72
sponses. More specifically, the discriminant validity of the various subscales of the JLS has not
73
been clearly established. It is certainly possible that the perceptual subscale will be more predictive
74
of responses associated with perceived racism, while the outgroup-directed subscale will be more
75
predictive of intergroup responses that involve negative treatment of Whites. Thus, there will be
76
an assessment of predictive validity of the various subscales of the JLS in intergroup interactions
77
involving perceived racism (i.e., racist attributions in ambiguously racist situations, and direct
78
confrontations with perceived racists) and negative treatment of Whites (i.e., blatant anti-White
79
discrimination). While the focus on perceived racism responses would serve to provide a replica-
80
tion to earlier research (Johnson & Lecci, 2003), the attention given to direct interracial confron-
81
tations and anti-White discrimination is important because of evidence that they are both
82
becoming common forms of negative intergroup interactions (see CNN Student News, 2002; Shi-
83
pler, 1997).
84
1.2. Confronting discrimination
85
Researchers have recently begun to assess what factors might influence stigmatized group mem-
86
bersÕ direct confrontation with the person or persons who are perceived to be discriminating. The
87
findings of these investigations indicate that there are likely negative consequences for such public
88
attributions of discrimination (Dobbs, 1998; Kaiser & Miller, 2001). The presence of supportive
89
others, however, decreases some of these costs. For instance, Stangor, Swim, Van-Allen, and
90
Sechrist (2002) found that Black participants were more likely to report discrimination when in
91
the presence of another Black individual. The authors contended that the presence of fellow stig-
92
matized group members may provide social support and a buffer (because the other is of equal
93
status) from the social cost of the public reporting of discrimination.
94
However, Blacks are not necessarily supportive of confrontation. Indeed, a comparison of
95
BlacksÕ and WhitesÕ impressions of Blacks who confront racism indicates that they tend to see
96
the confronter similarly (i.e., as less likeable but more competent than a non-confronter; Stangor
97
et al., 2005). Interestingly, it is also possible that there is variation in Black individualsÕ acceptance
98
of the use of confrontation for themselves and others. More specifically, those who are less likely to
99
conclude that discrimination is a problem in general or less likely to label particular types of inci-
100
dents as racist may feel that confrontation is less necessary. Thus, the JLS factor associated with
101
expectations of racist behavior among Whites may be a significant predictor of Black responses
102
to intergroup interaction involving perceived racism and confronting racism.
103
1.3. Black anti-White discrimination
104
A second Black intergroup response that has received minimal empirical attention involves
105
Black anti-White discriminatory activity. For example, there have been several incidents involving
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
UNCORRECTED
PROOF
106
White employees at Black universities making allegations that they have been denied advance-
107
ment and promotions due to their race (CNN Student News, 2002). There is a possibility that
108
Black anti-White attitudes, especially those involving negative responses towards Whites, may
109
have a significant influence on Black responses to anti-White discrimination. Monteith and Spicer
110
(2000) contend that Blacks can be aware of the existence of White anti-Black racism and yet not
111
respond or think negatively towards Whites due to their race. To support this contention, John-
112
son and Lecci (2003) found that expectations of White anti-Black discrimination and negative
113
outgroup-directed beliefs/behaviors towards Whites were separate and distinct factors on their
114
scale of Black anti-White bias. Moreover, only negative outgroup-directed attitudes/behaviors
115
JLS were related to onesÕ engagement in overt negative responses towards Whites (as assessed
116
by peers; Johnson & Lecci, 2003). While these findings indicate that negative outgroup-directed
117
attitudes/behaviors might be associated with the acceptance of unfair negative treatment of
118
Whites, their relation to overt and direct anti-White discrimination has not been assessed.
119
1.4. The present study
120
The goals of the present study were twofold. The first was to extend the intergroup relations
121
literature by evaluating the predictive validity of the JLS on the perceptual and behavioral related
122
intergroup responses of a community sample of Blacks, as the predictive validity of the JLS has
123
yet to be established for non-college students. An over reliance on college students is a major
124
shortcoming of the limited research on Black intergroup responses, as it is possible that college
125
students might have a more complex view of anti-White attitudes relative to the general commu-
126
nity. If this were the case, the four JLS subscales might be less predictive of various outcomes
127
when evaluated in other samples. Therefore, we will compare the predictive validity of the JLS
128
in a university and community sample of Black adults.
129
The second goal of the present study is to evaluate the predictive validity of the JLS on inter-
130
group responses that involve perceived racism (i.e., racist attributions in ambiguously racism inter-
131
actions, confrontations with perceived racists) and the negative treatment of Whites (i.e., anti-
132
White discrimination). Although previous research has demonstrated the predictive utility of the
133
JLS regarding perceived racism (Johnson & Lecci, 2003), the multi-factorial composition of the
134
JLS should also allow for the predictive validity of other outcome measures that examine the indi-
135
vidualÕs anticipated response to negative behavioral interactions with a majority group member.
136
2. Method
137
2.1. Participants
138
Two samples were recruited for the present investigation: A college student and an adult com-
139
munity sample. Participants in the college student sample were 101 Black undergraduate students
140
(largely sophomores and juniors) enrolled at a predominantly Black liberal arts college in the
141
southeastern United States. Participants (76 females, 19 males, 6 failed to report gender) ranged
142
in age from 21 to 45 years (M = 28.1, SD = 5.3). The data from the college sample were collected
143
in the fall of 2001 from three classes, and the participants were remunerated with class credit.
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
UNCORRECTED
PROOF
144
The adult community sample consists of 121 Black participants (82 females, 39 males) drawn
145
from a city in the southeastern United States in the spring and fall of 2002. Participants were
146
19–68 years of age (M = 44.0, SD = 11.2) and their education ranged from the tenth grade
147
(3.4%) to those having obtained more than one graduate degree (1.7%). These participants were
148
recruited through local community leaders and remunerated with a small financial incentive.
149
When comparing the two samples, it is important to note that almost two-thirds of the com-
150
munity sample (63.8%) had taken some college classes or obtained an undergraduate degree,
151
thereby making the two samples similar with regard to education. There was, however, a signif-
152
icant difference with regard to age, with the community sample being substantially older (differ-
153
ence = 15.9, t = 13.9, df = 178, p < .0001).
154
2.2. Measures
155
Johnson–Lecci Scale (JLS: Johnson & Lecci, 2003). Participants completed this 20-item self-
156
report inventory that assesses anti-White attitudes in Blacks. Responses to the face valid items
157
are based on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly agree)to3(strongly disagree). Based
158
on confirmatory factor analysis, the data achieved a good fit with a four factor model (the average
159
fit indices exceed .90, the v
2
to df ratio is 1.7:1, and the root mean square residual <.05), and a
160
significantly better fit than the one factor model (Johnson & Lecci, 2003). The four JLS subscale
161
scores of Ingroup-directed stigmatization/discriminatory expectations (CronbachÕs a = .89), Out-
162
group-directed negative beliefs (a = .61), Negative views toward ingroup–outgroup relations
163
(a = .65), and Negative verbal expression towards the outgroup (a = .79), have an average Cron-
164
bachÕs a = .74 and test–retest coefficient = .80 (Johnson & Lecci, 2003). The JLS subscales have
165
been shown to predict perceived racism, converge with collateral assessments of bias, and exhibit
166
discriminant validity with regard to other outgroups (e.g., biases with regard to age, gender, phys-
167
ical disabilities, etc.); thereby uniquely predicting Black–White relations (Johnson & Lecci, 2003).
168
2.3. Procedure
169
Participants were asked to take part in two brief studies. First, all participants read a passage
170
that was entitled, ‘‘Decision-Making Processes,’’ which described decision-making in a variety of
171
settings. The passages included both racially significant and race unrelated evaluations. The race
172
unrelated evaluations focused on other discriminatory issues (e.g., a teenager losing her prom date
173
because she gained weight, a woman losing a job to a less qualified male, a visually impaired male
174
being fired despite good performance) and were used to disguise the target group that we were
175
most interested in studying. The racially significant passages were 3–9 sentences in length, pro-
176
vided some contextual information, and involved perceived discrimination, acceptance of direct
177
confrontations with perceived racists, and acceptance of Black anti-White discrimination. After
178
reading the passages, participants were asked to respond to statements associated with those pas-
179
sages using a four point scale (A-strongly agree, B-agree, C-disagree, D-strongly disagree). In all
180
cases, the letters were linearly transformed into a 1–4 scale with higher scores indicating greater
181
perceived racism, greater acceptance of direct agreement, and greater acceptance of anti-White
182
discrimination.
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
UNCORRECTED
PROOF
183
2.3.1. Perceived discrimination passages
184
The first passage involves two Black men being stopped by two White police officers for trav-
185
eling 3 miles over the speed limit. The second passage involves a Black employee who lost a pro-
186
motion to a White employee with fewer years of experience. Participants were asked to rate the
187
extent to which these events occurred because the targets were Black using the above-described
188
scale. The two items were averaged to create a measure of perceived discrimination.
189
2.3.2. Acceptance of direct confrontation with perceived racists
190
The first passage involves a Black couple angrily accusing a hostess of racism after apparently
191
being passed over for a table in favor of a White couple. The second passage involves a Black man
192
angrily accusing a department store employee of racism after being asked for identification to use
193
a credit card, when a similar request was not made of a White customer. For both passages, par-
194
ticipants were asked to rate whether (1) the Black individualÕs actions were appropriate and jus-
195
tified, and (2) they would have acted in a similar manner. Item responses were averaged to create
196
outcome measures assessing approval of the targetÕs actions and likelihood of responding
197
similarly.
198
2.3.3. Acceptance of Black anti-White discrimination passages
199
The first passage involves a Black radio DJ who did not give a prize to a White winner in favor
200
of a Black caller. The second passage involves a Black CEO who was not seriously considering the
201
companyÕs White applicants for a management position. Participants again answered two ques-
202
tions after each passage to rate whether (1) the Black individualÕs actions were appropriate and
203
justified, and (2) they would have acted in a similar manner. Item responses were averaged to cre-
204
ate outcome measures assessing approval of the targetÕs actions, and likelihood of responding
205
similarly.
206
(Note: There are number of notable distinctions between the JLS items and the dependent vari-
207
ables used in this study. Specifically, the item content differs, items from the ingroup stigmatiza-
208
tion and discrimination expectations subscale involve general expectations of discrimination,
209
whereas the perceived racism scenarios involve specific ambiguously racist scenarios, and none
210
of the subscales of the JLS contain items that measure perceptions of direct confrontation to per-
211
ceived racism and/or blatant anti-White discrimination.)
212
Following the administration of these passages, participants took part in a separate study enti-
213
tled ‘‘Group Dynamics,’’ which asks a series of questions regarding various groups (i.e., lawyers,
214
environmentalists, etc.), and the JLS items were embedded among these questions.
215
3. Results
216
3.1. Comparing anti-White attitudes in the college and adult community samples
217
In order to directly compare the Black anti-White attitudes of a community sample to those of
218
college students, t-tests were employed for the subscales of the JLS and the outcome measures (see
219
Table 1). The results indicate that the community sample obtained lower scores on all four JLS
220
subscales. That is, overall the college student sample, comprised of individuals attending a pre-
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
UNCORRECTED
PROOF
221
dominantly Black college, evidences stronger anti-White bias relative to those in the adult com-
222
munity sample. To examine the role of age, JLS subscales were correlated with age across the
223
two samples (N = 222). Despite the fact that the community and college student samples differed
224
significantly with respect to age, age was not correlated with any of the JLS scores. The age of the
225
respondents did, however, correlate with the outcome measures of perceived discrimination
226
(r = .19, p = .005) and acceptance of direct confrontation with perceived racists (r = .42,
227
p > .001), with younger respondents being more likely to endorse items representing perceived dis-
228
crimination and supporting the direct confrontation of perceived racists. When examining the
229
combined data for the two samples, education did not relate to any of the JLS scores. Thus,
230
although there are differences between the two samples in anti-White attitudes as measured by
231
the JLS, these differences do not appear to be due to age or education.
232
3.2. Predicting perceptions of racism
233
Separate regression analyses were employed for each dependent variable. In the first step of
234
each analysis, a coded vector indicating the participantÕs sample was entered (college sample = 0,
235
community sample = 1). In the second step, the four JLS subscales were entered. The standard-
236
ized beta weights from the regression analyses are presented in Table 2.
237
Participants in the college sample were more likely than those in the community sample to de-
238
fine behaviors as discriminatory (b = .27, p < .0001). Consistent with results from Johnson and
239
Lecci (2003), the stronger the discriminatory expectations of the Black participants the more likely
240
they were to indicate that the behaviors described in these first two scenarios were discriminatory
241
(b = .39, p < .0001).
Table 1
JLS mean scores and outcome measures in a college student sample and an adult community sample
College student
sample (N = 101)
Community
sample (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) 1.90
4. 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 confronting
Approval 3.09 (.071) 2.88 (.066) 2.15
*
Similar response 3.09 (.072) 2.73 (.073) 3.50
***
Acceptance of anti-White discrimination
Approval 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
UNCORRECTED
PROOF
242
3.3. Predicting acceptance of direct confrontation with perceived racists
243
College students and community members did not differ in their tendency to approve of (i.e., to
244
see such behavior as appropriate and justifiable) confronting racist behavior (b = .08, ns), but
245
they did differ in their reported likelihood of responding to racist behavior (b = .16, p < .05).
246
Specifically, those in the college sample were more likely to report that they would confront a per-
247
ceived racist relative to those in the community sample.
248
One subscale from the JLS predicted approval of confronting racists. Those who evidenced
249
greater discriminatory expectations were more likely to indicate that they approved of confronting
250
racist behavior (b = .23, p < .005) and these individuals also reported being more likely to evi-
251
dence a similar response towards racists (b = .22, p < .005).
252
3.4. Predicting acceptance of Black anti-White discrimination
253
College students and community members differed in their tendency to approve of Black anti-
254
White discriminatory behavior (b = .19, p < .005) and they also differed in their reported likeli-
255
hood of responding in a similar manner (b = .16, p < .01). Specifically, those in the college sam-
256
ple were more likely to indicate that they approve of anti-White discrimination and that they
257
would respond in a similar manner.
258
One subscale from the JLS predicted the approval of Black anti-White discrimination. Specif-
259
ically, the greater the score on the JLS measure of negative verbal expressions towards Whites,
260
the more likely the individual would indicate approval of Black anti-White discrimination
261
(b = .39, p < .0001). Finally, those evidencing greater negative verbal expressions towards Whites
262
(b = .32, p < .0001) and those evidencing greater negative beliefs about Whites (b = .17, p < .05)
263
were more likely to want to engage in a similar response when faced with Black anti-White
264
discrimination.
Table 2
Standardized beta weights predicting perceived racism, acceptance of confronting, and acceptance of anti-White
discrimination
Dependent variable Sample Discriminatory
expectations
JLS subscales Negative verbal
expressions toward
Whites
Negative beliefs
about Whites
Negative views
about Black/White
relations
Perceived discrimination
Acceptance of confronting .27
****
.39
****
.08 .06 .06
Approval .08 .23
***
.09 .02 .05
Similar 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
UNCORRECTED
PROOF
265
Importantly, the findings for the JLS emerged after controlling for the effects of sample, and all
266
of the above findings emerged even after statistically controlling for both gender and social
267
desirability.
268
3.5. Examining interactions
269
Interaction effects were also examined between the JLS subscales and the sample. All interac-
270
tion terms were entered into the regression equation following the JLS and sample variables. The
271
interactions for perceived discrimination and the acceptance of confronting (both approval of and
272
intention to respond similarly) failed to achieve significance. However, the interaction between
273
sample and the JLS factor of Negative verbal expressions toward Whites was statistically signif-
274
icant for the participantsÕ approval of (b = 1.91, p < .0001) and intent to engage in (b = 1.80,
275
p < .0001) similar anti-White discrimination. A follow-up analysis within each sample illustrates
276
that the JLS subscale strongly predicts the approval of (b = .73, p < .0001) and intent to engage
277
in (b = .64, p < .0001) similar anti-White discrimination in college students, but it does not predict
278
such behavior in the community sample.
279
4. General discussion
280
Although research has focused on the complexities of White anti-Black attitudes in intergroup
281
relations (Dovidio, 2001; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986, 1998; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), the present
282
findings indicate that greater attention should be given to the complexities of Black anti-White
283
attitudes. The present study demonstrated that intergroup attitudes involving expectations of rac-
284
ism predict perceived racism and acceptance of direct confrontation with a racist, but they did not
285
predict acceptance of anti-White discrimination. This provides empirical support for Monteith
286
and SpicerÕs (2000) contention that Black sensitivity to racism may not be directly related to glo-
287
bal negative feelings towards Whites. The present study extends the literature by demonstrating
288
that such sensitivity is also not associated with negative responses towards Whites. Moreover,
289
the results imply that direct confrontations with perceived racists may be due to defensive moti-
290
vations (responding to perceived discrimination) and not based on hostility towards Whites.
291
Finally, the two predictors of anti-White discrimination involved attitudes associated with out-
292
group-directed negative responses. These particular findings suggest that blatant anti-White dis-
293
crimination is probably greatly influenced by negative feelings and/or hostility directed at
294
Whites, but not sensitivity to racism. (Note: The stronger predictive validity of some JLS subscales
295
may be due to their higher internal reliability).
296
In addition, there were a number of interesting differences between the college sample and com-
297
munity sample on both the nature of their anti-White attitudes and intergroup responses towards
298
Whites. When compared to the community sample, those in college were more likely to endorse
299
beliefs of White racism, express negative beliefs about Whites, have negative views about Black–
300
White relationships, and make negative verbal expressions towards Whites. The results also indi-
301
cated that relative to community participants, college students were more likely to perceive racism
302
and report a greater willingness to directly confront perceived racists. Similarly, college students
303
were more likely to accept and engage in anti-White discriminatory behavior and their anti-White
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
UNCORRECTED
PROOF
304
attitudes were more predictive of such behavior relative to those in the community sample. How-
305
ever, the differences do not appear to be due to age or education (i.e., the differences persist after
306
statistically controlling for these variables), but may instead reflect the views of Blacks who attend
307
predominantly Black schools.
308
4.1. Implications for the attribution of discrimination literature and future research
309
Previous research has examined factors that both minimize (Kaiser & Miller, 2001; Major et al.,
310
2002) and facilitate (Stangor et al., 2002) the probability that stigmatized group members will
311
make public attributions of discrimination. For example, Stangor and colleagues contend that
312
facilitation may occur because a stigmatized group member expects the fellow group member
313
to provide emotional or informational support. The present findings indicate that the actual de-
314
gree of support for public attributions of discrimination will vary as a function of intercrop atti-
315
tudes regarding expectations of racism. While previous research has shown that individual
316
variability in Black anti-White beliefs tends to influence perceptions of racist behavior (Johnson
317
& Lecci, 2003), the present study extends the research by demonstrating that variability in these
318
beliefs can also influence perceptions of the appropriate responses to such behavior.
319
Future research could consider whether Black anti-White biases would also predict responses to
320
positive intergroup responses (e.g., when a Black person has given a White person assistance), as
321
well as conducting a comparative evaluation of the predictive validity of racial identification and
322
anti-White attitudes with regard to perceived racism and acceptance of anti-White discrimination.
323
Moreover, it is important to note that our measures of acceptance of direct confrontation are
324
actually assessing the acceptance of hostile confrontation. It is therefore possible that acceptance
325
may have varied depending on the form of confrontation. At any rate, the present findings extend
326
the validation of the JLS and emphasize the importance of considering individual differences in
327
predicting Black intergroup responses.
328
5. Uncited reference
329
Fiske and Stevens (1993).
330
References
331
Biernat, M., & Crandall, C. S. (1999). Racial attitudes. In S. R. Phillip & J. P. Robinson, et al. (Eds.), Measures of
332
political attitudes (Vol. 2, pp. 297–411). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
333
Brigham, J. C. (1994). College studentsÕ racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(23), 1933–1967.
334
Brigham, J. C. (1977). The structure of racial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977(3), 651–658.
335
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90(2), 105–126.
336
CNN Student News (2002). Black colleges wrestle with discrimination claims. March 21, 2002.
337
Devine, P. G. (1995). Getting hooked on research in social psychology: Examples from eyewitness identification and
338
prejudice. In G. G. Brannigan & M. R. Merrens (Eds.), The social psychologists: Research adventures. McGraw-Hill
339
series in social psychology (pp. 161–184). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
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
UNCORRECTED
PROOF
340
Dobbs, M. F. (1998). Managing diversity: The department of energy initiative. Public Personnel Management, 27(2),
341
161–174.
342
Dovidio, J. F. (2001). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The third wave. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4),
343
829–849.
344
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (Eds.). (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
345
Inc.
346
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The causes, consequences, and
347
challenges of aversive racism. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the
348
response (pp. 3–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
349
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. E., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. (2002). Why canÕt we just get along? Interpersonal biases
350
and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(2), 88–102.
351
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Reducing contemporary prejudice: Combating explicit and
352
implicit bias at the individual and intergroup level. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination. The
353
Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 137–163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
354
Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). WhatÕs so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S.
355
Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society. Claremont symposium on applied social
356
psychology (pp. 173–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
357
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). The aversive form of racism. In C. Stangor (Ed.), Stereotypes and prejudice:
358
Essential readings. Key readings in social psychology (pp. 289–304). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
359
Hyers, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1998). A comparison of the experiences of dominant and minority group members during
360
an intergroup encounter. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1(2), 143–163.
361
Johnson, J. D., & Lecci, L. (2003). Assessing anti-White attitudes and predicting perceived racism: The Johnson–Lecci
362
scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 299–312.
363
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination.
364
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254–263.
365
Monteith, M. J., & Spicer, C. V. (2000). Contents and correlates of Whites and Blacks racial attitudes. Journal of
366
Experimental Social Psychology, 36(2), 125–154.
367
Sears, D. O. (1998). Racism and politics in the United States. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting
368
racism: The problem and the response (pp. 76–100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
369
Shipler, D. (1997). A country of strangers: Blacks and Whites in America. New York: Knopf.
370
Stangor, C., Swim, J. K., Sechrist, G., Decoster, J., Van Allen, K., & Ottenbreit, A. (2005). Ask, answer, & announce:
371
Three stages in perceiving and responding to discrimination. European Review of Social Psychology, 14, 277–311.
372
Stangor, C., Swim, J. K., Van-Allen, K. L., & Sechrist, G. B. (2002). Reporting discrimination in public and private
373
contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 69–74.
374
Sue, S. (1999). Science, ethnicity, and bias: Where have we gone wrong? American Psychologist, 54(12), 1070–1077.
375
Swim, J. K., & Stangor, C. (Eds.). (1998). Prejudice: The targetÕs perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
376
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