Social Psychology's 'Racism.'
Saved in:
| Title: | Social Psychology's 'Racism.' |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Roth, Byron M. |
| Source: | Public Interest. Win 1990 (98):26-36. |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 11 |
| Publication Date: | 1990 |
| Intended Audience: | Researchers |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - General |
| Descriptors: | Affirmative Action, Lower Class, Majority Attitudes, Racial Attitudes, Racial Bias, Social Psychology, Social Status, Social Theories |
| Abstract: | Examines the following theories proposed by social psychologists to explain popular resistance to affirmative action strategies: (1) the naivete explanation; (2) the symbolic racism theory; and (3) the "realistic" group-conflict theory. Argues that social psychology ignores the public's perception of Blacks as members of a social underclass. (FMW) |
| Notes: | Special section with title, "Social Science and Black/White." |
| Journal Code: | CIJJUN1990 |
| Entry Date: | 1990 |
| Accession Number: | EJ403353 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFrr3urVpDKi0g-DvEPzYwGAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMQnMOjxUw4sqvD0kAIBEICBm70NiGIr9X3QEPG6l31i_Vdy3pqEMjS0lTteJm5FGSX3I1NYNMcac592eUDjaX8IFWzGkXYrRBjSCTOoY9sB2niVg2yEe9rJ_rVMk-R3YDhAfFlSD65IkGMGYHXVzxlqOGwuzqbHE5UXRtDse7FrGCR9I7wiuYDpWYjIjqmX4b0vlu5gef0L_RbeXAVte2hr4sjRVAc8f4sWgFij Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN9607260195;PBI01WIN.90;1996Sep16.14:39;v2.3</anid> <jsection id="AN9607260195-1"> SOCIAL SCIENCE AND BLACK/WHITE: III</jsection> <title id="AN9607260195-2">SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY'S `RACISM' </title> <p>MOST READERS of this and similar journals are familiar with the critique of the civil-rights agenda--especially the policies of forced busing and admissions or hiring quotas--that Thomas Sowell, Nathan Glazer, Charles Murray, and others have advanced. Such readers know that most Americans have opposed these policies all along; they think that this opposition testifies to the good sense of the American electorate. </p> <p>But the reaction of most social scientists, in particular social psychologists, is quite different. Social psychologists generally support such policies, and they have difficulty understanding why others do not. In fact, their attempts to explain the opposition are almost invariably demeaning to the American people. The "problem" that they think requires an explanation is well stated by Donald Kinder: </p> <p>Denial of equal rights and opportunities to blacks no longer enjoys majority support. on voting rights, public accommodations, housing, and employment practices, racist sentiment has drastically diminished; in some cases it has virtually disappeared.... This is a striking change and a momentous achievement. Nevertheless, political conflict over racial matters has not exactly disappeared. Indeed, affirmative action, racial quotas, "forced busing," and the "welfare mess" are among the most contentious public issues of our time. Forty years after Myrdal, in the wake of dramatic changes in public opinion and social custom, why do so many white Americans continue to resist efforts designed to bring about racial equality? [Emphasis added.] </p> <p>Instead of taking the opposition to affirmative action at face value, understanding it as the product of honest disagreement over how best to achieve racial equality, many social scientists see it as an attempt to "resist" equality. In trying to explain that resistance, their theories caricature affirmative action's opponents as hopelessly naive, secretly prejudiced, or venal and uncaring. Studiously avoiding the many well-known and well-received critiques of affirmative-action policies, the theories reveal a singular insularity among social scientists. </p> <cn>The naivete explanation</cn> <p>The least ingenious explanation of the public's disagreement with the civil-rights agenda is that the electorate is naive. According to this view, Americans do not understand how severely our society is stratified, and how many difficulties blacks and other minorities face in their efforts to achieve "equity." Americans who believe in the Protestant ethic are said to possess a childlike faith in individualism. In their book Race and Equality, Paul Sniderman of Stanford and Michael Hagen of Berkeley comment as follows on Americans' belief in this "folk ideology": </p> <p>Individualism, then, is an ethic: It is a bedrock belief in the ethic of self-reliance. Individuals must take care of themselves. They must not pretend to be victims of circumstance, or ask for specific favors, in an effort to get others to do for them what they should do for themselves.... </p> <p>Individualism, so conceived, is an ungenerous idea. It is not ungenerous in the sense of being misanthropic. But it refuses to acknowledge that some are in fact handicapped and must overcome obstacles that are not of their making and that others do not face. In this sense the individualist lacks empathy for those disadvantaged by race or by poverty or by gender.... </p> <p>According to the authors, the naive popular culture spreads such views, "[f]or it deals directly with ideas about success and failure--about the importance of individual effort, for example, as expressed in the conviction that anyone with talent and a willingness to work can get ahead in America." </p> <p>If you agree with the following statements, the authors contend, you adhere to the ethic of"ungenerous individualism": </p> <p>It's a lack of skill and abilities that keep many black people from getting a job. It's not just because they are black. When a black person is trained to do something, he is able to get a job. </p> <p>Black people may not have the same opportunities as whites, but many blacks haven't prepared themselves enough to make use of the opportunities that come their way. </p> <p>On the other hand, if you agree with the following, you exhibit a more sophisticated and generous understanding: "Even with the new programs, minorities still face the same old job discrimination once the program is over." In other words, if one rejects the view that coercive government action is necessary to counter discrimination, one ungenerously resists racial equality. There is not the slightest indication that Sniderman and Hagen have considered that the "wrong" responses to their statements may be more correct than their preferred alternatives. Conceivably, the public has learned something in the last twenty-five years that many social scientists have yet to understand: that if anything, the faith of poor blacks in the liberal agenda--their reliance on government support--has worsened their plight. Nor do Sniderman and Hagen seem aware that minorities may be harmed by accepting the thesis that American society is hopelessly discriminatory. </p> <p>Other researchers also attribute hostility toward quotas to American naivete. In a 1983 Social Forces article on attitudes toward affirmative action, James Kluegal and Eliot Smith argue that while whites--recognizing that blacks suffered from discrimination in the past--support programs to "assist blacks to acquire skills," they nevertheless oppose preferential hiring quotas "because they are thought to violate dominant equity norms." This opposition, the authors contend, is based on ignorance: </p> <p>The premise that affirmative action programs are necessary to equalize opportunity requires that whites believe that the stratification system currently does not pro,vide equal opportunity for all persons and groups. In this regard the seeming insensitivity of whites to the socioeconomic disadvantage of blacks may stem more from racial segregation, and the resulting limited and naive perspective whites have on blacks. circumstances, than from prejudice and racism. </p> <p>In fact, however, most Americans are not naive about how people get ahead in America; Kluegal and Smith are. As shown by Thomas Sowell, William Julius Wilson, and Ben Wattenberg, or simply by a fair reading of the census data, most of the evidence indicates that those who adopt the work ethic do quite well in America. Kluegal and Smith certainly offer no evidence to the contrary. </p> <cn>Symbolic racism</cn> <p>By far the most influential explanation for opposition to busing and quotas is offered by John M. McConahay, David O. Sears, and Donald Kinder. They and various coworkers have generated a sizable collection of works that blame this opposition on what they call "symbolic racism." All objective measures of white Americans' attitudes reveal a steady decline in racism. But since opposition to busing and quotas remains high, these researchers hypothesize that some more elusive form of racism may explain it. Kinder and Sears argue that Americans rationalize this new racism in terms of a commitment to traditional values: </p> <p>In years gone by, it was easy to specify the content of this early-learned prejudice: it centered on intentional and legitimate discrimination and segregation. However, over the past thirty years, white opposition to equal opportunity has sharply declined. on voting rights, schools, public accommodations, housing, and employment practices, segregationist sentiment has all but disappeared. White America has become, in principle at least, racially egalitarian--a momentous and undeniably significant change. Since the explicitly segregationist, white supremacist view has all but disappeared, it can no longer be a major political force. </p> <p>What has replaced it, we suggest, is a new variant that might be called symbolic racism. This we define as a blend of anti black affect and the kind of traditional American moral values embedded in the Protestant ethic[,] .... a form of resistance to change in the racial status quo based on moral feelings that blacks violate self-reliance, the work ethic, obedience, and discipline. Whites may feel that individuals should be rewarded on their merits, which in turn should be based on hard work and diligent service. Hence symbolic racism should find its most vociferous expression on political issues that involve "unfair" government assistance to blacks...; welfare...; "reverse discrimination" and racial quotas...; "forced" busing...; or "free" abortions for the poor.... </p> <p>Thus agreement with traditional American values provides a cover for the expression of deeply felt prejudice, and hence is evidence of racial hostility. </p> <p>But how do Kinder and Sears know whether people who hold such views are racists and not simply upholders of traditional values? To distinguish opposition based on racial animosity from opposition bases on political belief would require independently validated measures of each, which Kinder and Sears do not provide. Instead they measure "symbolic racism" by means of a questionnaire that hopelessly confuses the two types of opposition. They based their 1981 paper on the attitudes of voters in Los Angeles mayoral elections, for instance, on responses to the following questions: </p> <olist> <item> Do you think that most Negroes/blacks who receive money from welfare programs could get along without it if they tried, or do they really need the help? </item> <item> [Agree or disagree:] Because of past discrimination it is sometimes necessary to set up quotas for admission to college of minority group students. </item> <item> Do you think Los Angeles city officials pay more, less, or the same attention to a request or complaint from a black person? </item> <item> Of the groups on the card, are there any which you think have gained more than they are entitled to? </item> <item> [Agree or disagree:] It is wrong to set up quotas to admit black students to college who don't meet the usual requirements. </item> <item> [Agree or disagree:] over the past two years blacks have got more than they deserve. </item> <item> In Los Angeles, would you say many, some, or only a few blacks miss out on jobs or promotions because of racial discrimination? </item> <item> [Agree or disagree:] Negroes/blacks shouldn't push where they're not wanted. </item> <item> [Agree or disagree:] Busing elementary school children to schools in other parts of the city only harms their education. </item> <item> [Agree or disagree:] In some cases it is best for children to attend elementary schools outside their neighborhood. </item> <item> Are you in favor or opposed to the busing of children to achieve racial desegregation? </item> <item> If the Supreme Court ordered busing to achieve racial desegregation of public schools would you be opposed to it? </item> <item> [Agree or disagree:] If necessary, children should be bused to achieve racial desegregation. </item> </olist> <p>One's symbolic-racism "score" is determined by how many questions one answers in the "wrong" way. Those who oppose busing and quotas are therefore guaranteed to score high on symbolic racism, even if they get credit for all the other items. If they also disapprove of welfare policies and the political activism of black militants, they would be considered hopeless symbolic racists. Item 8, "Blacks shouldn't push where they're not wanted," does seem to suggest segregationist attitudes. But even this is not clear, for while 64 percent of respondents agreed with that statement, 70 percent of the people who responded to a questionnaire distributed at the same time and reported in the same article said that they would not mind if a black moved next door to them. </p> <p>The authors advance no evidence to show that this new "symbolic" racism (which seems simply to mirror the attitudes held by many reputable public figures at the time) was related to real racism. In fact, Sears's coworker John B. McConahay stressed in an earlier paper that there was no relation. McConahay found that symbolic racism was most highly correlated with such things as identifying with the Republican party and believing that children should be taught patriotism in schools. This finding is hardly surprising, since the symbolic-racism scale really measures political conservatism. The only independent validation of Kinder and Sears's symbolic-racism scale was the voting behavior of the respondents. Those who scored high on symbolic racism (i.e., expressed prevailing conservative views) were found to be more likely to vote for a white Republican (Yorty) in the mayoral election than a black Democrat (Bradley). This perfectly rational voting pattern was characterized by Kinder and Sears as "anti black voting behavior." </p> <p>Yet despite these weaknesses, Kinder and Sears's research won "the 1978 Gordon All port Intergroup Relations Prize from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues." Carried out "under the direction of Thomas Pettigrew" (a highly respected social psychologist), the research is widely reported in most introductory texts in social psychology as solid scientific evidence of the racism of American society. </p> <p>It is true that the Sears, Kinder, and McConahay position has met some criticism. Paul Sniderman (creator of the "naivete" explanation) and Philip E. Tetlock have attacked as "scandalous" the confusion of racism and political conservatism. But Sniderman and Tetlock have also insisted that it is an error to claim that old fashioned racism has "all but disappeared." Kinder's reply is revealing. He agrees that he and Sears overstated the case, but then points to much research that shows a very weak connection between traditional racial prejudice and attitudes on such matters as busing: </p> <p>McConahay (1982) found a small effect of traditional racial prejudice on opposition to busing in Louisville; Bobo (1983) found no effect in 1972 and a tiny effect in 1976 using national samples; Sears and Kinder (1971) and Kinder and Sears (1981) put the question aside since racial prejudice, measured in traditional ways, had virtually vanished from the Los Angeles suburbs; only McClendon (1985) found a sizable effect due to old fashioned racism. By these results, the political impact of traditional forms of racial prejudice pale against those due to symbolic racism. </p> <p>"Symbolic racism," then, is a phantom conjured up to substitute for a racism that has declined in significance. </p> <p>Missing in the exchange between Kinder and his critics, and in this literature in general, is any hint of the possibility that people oppose preferential hiring out of a well-reasoned attachment to traditional American values. There is not the slightest indication that America's prosperity and the wealth of opportunities that have traditionally been open to new immigrants are in part accounted for by those very values. The assumption that America is an ungenerous and racist society is simply too deeply ingrained in the liberal orthodoxy to be challenged by evidence to the contrary, even the evidence that the researchers gather themselves. No one questions, furthermore, how a prejudice that is so hard to detect can also do enough harm to require the coercive abandonment of widely shared and important values. </p> <cn>"Realistic" group-conflict theory</cn> <p>Many researchers have attempted to determine whether white opposition to affirmative-action policies is the result of symbolic racism or of the "real" racial threat that those policies purportedly pose to whites. Lawrence Bobo, the leading spokesman for the view that real racial threat is involved, puts it this way: </p> <p>The central thesis underlying the present discussion is that racial attitudes reflect the existing economic, social and political relationships between black and white Americans; in other words, the real features of group relations and conflict. Specifically, American social organization allows and fosters in whites the belief that blacks, in so far as they demand changes in the racial status quo, are a threat to their lifestyles, as well as to other valued resources and practices... Further progress in the struggle for racial equality and integration such as affirmative action goals or quotas will likely .... upset some aspect of the social experience of most whites (e.g. eliminate segregated schools and housing) Therefore whites come to view a policy like busing as threatening to states of affairs with which they are quite comfortable--threatening to a social world and position in society they accept and value. </p> <p>Bobo thinks that whites have a group interest in maintaining the racial status quo; he believes that improvements for blacks are "challenges to [whites'] group status or position." For Bobo "the contemporary features of inequality and group conflict are .. focused on the pace of change and matters of resource distribution (like access to quality schools)." </p> <p>But what is the empirical basis for this group-conflict view? Sears and his coworkers had argued that actual self-interest was not important in determining opposition to such policies as busing. They found, for instance, that people who had children in school did not have different attitudes toward busing than those without children, or with children beyond school age. Bobo reanalyzed their data and reached similar conclusions. He thinks, however, that this finding is not critical, since "[p]eople can form an opinion about an ongoing and controversial issue like busing simply by thinking in terms of the interests of 'myself and people like me.'" Bobo identified the factors most highly associated with anti-busing sentiment and concluded: </p> <p>Perhaps the most significant result of the present research is the discovery that perceived threat and applied policy predispositions are the strongest predictor of whites' opposition to busing.... Indeed, an apparent anomaly in the results points out the value of particular perceived threat variables. Questions about the character or methods of the civil rights movement ("Actions Hurtful" and "Actions Violent") did not influence opposition to busing, but questions concerned with the pace and implications of change did ("Civil Rights Push" and "Dislike Black Militants"). Taken together, these results go far in explaining the discrepancy between whites' tendency to endorse principles of integration and equality ... and the simultaneous tendency to reject specific integrationist policies like busing. </p> <p>Yet why should opposition to busing be correlated with attitudes toward the pace of civil-rights change, but not with attitudes toward civil-rights methods? "Civil Rights Push" was measured by responses to this question: "Some say the civil rights people have been trying to push too fast. others feel they haven't pushed fast enough. How about you?...." "Actions Hurtful," on the other hand, was measured by responses to the following: "Do you think the actions black people have taken have, on the whole, helped their cause, or, on the whole, hurt their cause?" But given all the political heat that busing has generated, most people who oppose busing probably think that it decreases sympathy for blacks and thus hurts their cause. Bobo never quite resolves this "apparent anomaly." His confusing and seemingly contradictory findings simply do not justify his conclusion that whites think that 'blacks threaten their social status. </p> <p>This is not to deny that some whites oppose affirmative action out of a real conflict of interest. After all, if a black applicant is given preferential admission to a prestigious university, a non black applicant must be denied a place. The same is true of minority set asides and other affirmative-action programs. But Bobo's research does not directly address such issues. The survey does not ask respondents whether they believe that busing will harm their children's education, or whether their children will be endangered by being bused to an integrated school--even though such questions might clarify things. Nor does Bobo acknowledge that people may oppose busing and quotas because they believe them to endanger society by fostering group resentment and promoting intergroup hostility. Raising these questions, of course, would highlight the rational bases for opposition to affirmative action and busing. Like those whom he criticizes, Bobo ignores the possibility that people might honestly consider quotas and busing unwise and counterproductive. </p> <cn>Where is the underclass?</cn> <p>One of the literature's most glaring weaknesses is its failure to consider class as an important determinant of perceptions about race. The "American public" whose responses to various questionnaires are analyzed is generally a middle-class population, whose attachment to the Protestant ethic is well-known. Middle-class Americans tend to place great value on home ownership, neighborhood respectability, and education. The questionnaires ask such people to take positions on "blacks." But to what blacks do the questions refer? All of them are surprisingly vague on this point, especially in light of the widely acknowledged chasm that has developed between middle-class blacks and "underclass" blacks. The incomes, educations, and lifestyles of the former are increasingly indistinguishable from those of their white counterparts. Underclass blacks, however, are marked by social pathologies--illegitimacy, crime, school failure, drug abuse, unemployment, and so on--that are alien to most members of the middle class, whether black or white. This dichotomy within the black population is ignored in the debates about the meaning of white attitudes toward busing and quotas. </p> <p>Among the obvious reasons for whites' rejection of quotas, and for their refusal to see discrimination as the bugbear described by civil-rights advocates, is the fact that blacks--even very poor blacks--who hew to "middle-class" mores by postponing parenthood, finishing school, and avoiding drugs and crime are doing quite well; by contrast, those in the underclass, whose behavior violates those mores, fare badly. Given this undeniable reality, how is one supposed to choose between the following statements from Sniderman and Hagen's questionnaire? </p> <p>A. Many blacks have only themselves to blame for not doing better in life. If they tried harder, they'd do better. </p> <p>B. When two qualified people, one black and one white, are considered for the same job, the black won't get the job no matter how hard he tries. </p> <p>To choose "A" is to be labeled "ungenerous" toward the plight of blacks, even though the statement is obviously correct. By contrast, the second statement is patently absurd. The contradictory responses that people give to such questionnaires does not point to their ambivalence about racial equality. Instead it suggests that the questionnaires were designed and interpreted by social scientists who are insulated from reality. </p> <p>The researchers' obliviousness to the black underclass also calls into question their easy assertions about the extent of "old fashioned redneck" racism. For instance, all researchers agree that support for segregation is a mark of real racism. It is typically measured by responses to questions like the following ones, asked by Gallup pollsters during 1978 and 1980: </p> <olist> <item> Would you, yourself, have any objection to sending your children to school where a few of the children were black? [95 percent of the respondents said"no."] </item> <item> Would you, yourself, have any objection to sending your children to school where half the children were black? [76 percent said "no."] </item> <item> Would you, yourself, have any objection to sending your children to school where more than half the children were black? [42 percent said "no."] </item> <item> If a black person came to live next door would you move? [86 percent said "no," 10 percent said that they might, and 4 percent said yes."] </item> <item> Would you move if black people came to live in great numbers in your neighborhood? [46 percent said "no," 33 percent said that they might, and 21 percent said "yes."] </item> </olist> <p>Do the objections of a majority of white parents to their children's attending a largely black school indicate lingering racial hostility? Might they instead point to the fact (not merely the perception) that many such schools are dangerous places with inadequate educational standards? Do the 33 percent who said that they might move (and the 21 percent who said they would move) if large numbers of blacks moved into their neighborhoods reject integration "in practice"? or do these figures reflect a concern that the "large numbers of blacks" might include many members of the underclass? Few members of the middle class--whether white or black--see underclass blacks as desirable neighbors. </p> <p>In truth, the hard data that supposedly buttress the analyses of whites' racial attitudes are susceptible to a wide variety of interpretations. By no means do the data justify social scientists in their competing and demeaning explanations of Americans' "resistance to racial equality." </p> <p>Most Americans know-and are prepared to admit--that the lot of blacks in this country is often hard. These same Americans oppose paternalistic government policies that run counter to traditional American values; they consider such policies unsound, unwise, and unlikely to help blacks in the long run. All surveys indicate that Americans support efforts to assure blacks a fair shake. They also reveal a broad consensus that, given a fair shake, blacks can and should make it on their own. If the American people hold such beliefs, as this research suggests, perhaps they are correct and the social scientists who denounce them are wrong. </p> <p>In 1975 Nathan Glazer, in his Affirmative Discrimination, said that America's use of racial quotas signals that </p> <p>we have abandoned the first principle of a liberal society, that the individual and the individual's interests and good and welfare are the test of a good society, for we now attach benefits and penalties to individuals simply on the basis of their race, color and national origin. The implications of this new course are an increasing consciousness of the significance of group membership, an increasing divisiveness on the [oasis of race, color and national origin, and a spreading resentment among disfavored groups against favored groups. </p> <p>Glazer was right to deplore this shift. Most Americans agreed with him all along. It appears at long last that the Supreme Court may have begun to see the wisdom of the public's good sense on these issues. Perhaps even the social scientists will ultimately get the message. </p> <aug> <p>By BYRON M. ROTH </p> </aug> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ403353 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Social Psychology's 'Racism.' – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Roth%2C+Byron+M%2E%22">Roth, Byron M.</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Public+Interest%22"><i>Public Interest</i></searchLink>. Win 1990 (98):26-36. – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 11 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 1990 – Name: Audience Label: Intended Audience Group: Audnce Data: Researchers – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - General – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affirmative+Action%22">Affirmative Action</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lower+Class%22">Lower Class</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Majority+Attitudes%22">Majority Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Attitudes%22">Racial Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Bias%22">Racial Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Psychology%22">Social Psychology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Status%22">Social Status</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Theories%22">Social Theories</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Examines the following theories proposed by social psychologists to explain popular resistance to affirmative action strategies: (1) the naivete explanation; (2) the symbolic racism theory; and (3) the "realistic" group-conflict theory. Argues that social psychology ignores the public's perception of Blacks as members of a social underclass. (FMW) – Name: Note Label: Notes Group: Note Data: Special section with title, "Social Science and Black/White." – Name: CodeSource Label: Journal Code Group: SrcInfo Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JC" term="%22CIJJUN1990%22">CIJJUN1990</searchLink> – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 1990 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ403353 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ403353 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 11 StartPage: 26 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Affirmative Action Type: general – SubjectFull: Lower Class Type: general – SubjectFull: Majority Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Racial Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Racial Bias Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Psychology Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Status Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Theories Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Social Psychology's 'Racism.' Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Roth, Byron M. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 1990 Numbering: – Type: issue Value: 98 Titles: – TitleFull: Public Interest Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
