Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Whites are theorized to support color-blind policies as an act of racial agenda setting—an attempt to defend the existing hierarchy by excluding race from public and institutional discourse. The present analysis leverages work distinguishing between two forms of social dominance orientation (SDO): passive opposition to equality (SDO-E) and active desire for dominance (SDO-D). We hypothesized that agenda setting, as a subtle hierarchy-maintenance strategy, would be uniquely tied to high levels of SDO-E. When made to believe that the hierarchy was under threat, Whites high in SDO-E increased their endorsement of color-blind policy (Study 1), particularly when the racial hierarchy was framed as ingroup advantage (Study 2), and became less willing to include race as a topic in a hypothetical presidential debate (Study 3). Across studies, Whites high in SDO-D showed no affinity for agenda setting as a hierarchy-maintenance strategy.

Keywords

color-blind policy hierarchy maintenance social dominance orientation agenda setting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

M. J.

(1988). The American census: A social history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Apfelbaum

E. P.

Pauker

Sommers

S. R.

Ambady

(2010). In blind pursuit of racial equality? Psychological Science, 21, 1587-1592. doi:10.1177/0956797610384741

Apfelbaum

E. P.

Sommers

S. R.

Norton

M. I.

(2008). Seeing race and seeming racist? Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 918-932. doi:10.1037/a0011990

Bacharach

Baratz

M. S.

(1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 974-952.

Bonilla-Silva

(2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Branscombe

N. R.

(1998). Thinking about one’s gender group’s privileges or disadvantages: Consequences for well-being in women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 167-184.

Buhrmeister

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980

Carr

L. G.

(1997). “Color-blind” racism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Chow

R. M.

Lowery

B. S.

Hogan

C. M.

(2013). Appeasement: Whites’ strategic support for affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 332-345. doi:10.1177/0146167212475224

10.

Gould

R. V.

(2002). The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. American Journal of Sociology, 107(5), 1143-1178.

11.

Hetey

R. C.

Eberhardt

J. L.

(2014). Racial disparities in incarceration increase acceptance of punitive policies. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1949-1954. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614540307

12.

Higgins

E. T.

(1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-46). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

13.

A. K.

Sidanius

Kteily

Sheehy-Skeffington

Pratto

Henkel

K. E.

. . . Stewart

A. L.

(in press). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

14.

A. K.

Sidanius

Pratto

Levin

Thomsen

Kteily

Sheehy-Skeffington

(2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 583-606. doi:10.1177/0146167211432765

15.

Hochschild

J. L.

(1995). Facing up to the American Dream: Race, class, and the soul of the nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

16.

HoSang

D. M.

(2010). Racial propositions: Ballot initiatives and the making of postwar California. Berkeley: University of California Press.

17.

Jost

J. T.

Thompson

E. P.

(2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209-232. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1403

18.

Knowles

E. D.

Lowery

B. S.

(2012). Meritocracy, self-concerns, and Whites’ denial of racial inequity. Self and Identity, 11(2), 202–222. http://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2010.542015

19.

Knowles

E. D.

Lowery

B. S.

Hogan

C. M.

Chow

R. M.

(2009). On the malleability of ideology: Motivated construals of color blindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 857-869. doi:10.1037/a0013595

20.

Kteily

Saguy

Sidanius

Taylor

D. M.

(2013). Negotiating power: Agenda ordering and the willingness to negotiate in asymmetric intergroup conflicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 978-995. doi:10.1037/a0034095

21.

Kugler

M. B.

Cooper

Nosek

B. A.

(2010). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality correspond to different psychological motives. Social Justice Research, 23, 117-155. doi:10.1007/s11211-010-0112-5

22.

Loveman

(2014). National colors: Racial classification and the state in Latin America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

23.

Lowery

B. S.

Chow

R. M.

Knowles

E. D.

Unzueta

M. M.

(2012). Paying for positive group esteem: How inequity frames affect whites’ responses to redistributive policies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 323-336. doi:10.1037/a0024598

24.

Lowery

B. S.

Knowles

E. D.

Unzueta

M. M.

(2007). Framing inequity safely: Whites’ motivated perceptions of racial privilege. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1237-1250. doi:10.1177/0146167207303016

25.

Lowery

B. S.

Unzueta

M. M.

Knowles

E. D.

Goff

P. A.

(2006). Concern for the ingroup and opposition to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 961-974. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.961

26.

Lukes

(2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

27.

Norton

M. I.

Sommers

S. R.

Apfelbaum

E. P.

Pura

Ariely

(2006). Color blindness and interracial interaction: Playing the political correctness game. Psychological Science, 17, 949-953.

28.

Overbeck

J. R.

Jost

J. T.

Mosso

C. O.

Flizik

(2004). Resistant versus acquiescent responses to ingroup inferiority as a function of social dominance orientation in the USA and Italy. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 35-54.

29.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. (2007). U.S.

30.

Plaut

V. C.

Thomas

K. M.

Goren

M. J.

(2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities? Psychological Science, 20, 444-446.

31.

Powell

A. A.

Branscombe

N. R.

Schmitt

M. T.

(2005). Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 508-521.

32.

Pratto

Liu

J. H.

Levin

Sidanius

Shih

Bachrach

Hegarty

(2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 369-409.

33.

Pratto

Sidanius

Stallworth

L. M.

Malle

B. F.

(1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741

34.

Pratto

Stallworth

L. M.

Sidanius

(1997). The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49-68.

35.

Pratto

Tatar

D. G.

Conway-Lanz

(1999). Who gets what and why: Determinants of social allocations. Political Psychology, 20, 127-150. Retrieved from http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0162-895X&site=1

36.

Proposition 54. (2003). Smart Voter. Retrieved from http://www.smartvoter.org/2003/10/07/ca/state/prop/54/

37.

Richeson

J. A.

Nussbaum

R. J.

(2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus color-blindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 417-423.

38.

Robinson

P. M.

Connerly

Douglass

R. E.

(2002). Strength in numbers: Race and the census. Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson. Retrieved from http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26953

39.

Rousseau

J.-J.

(2009). Discourse on the origin of inequality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1755)

40.

Saguy

Dovidio

J. F.

Pratto

(2008). Beyond contact: Intergroup contact in the context of power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 432-445. doi:10.1177/0146167207311200

41.

Saguy

Kteily

(2014). Power, negotiations, and the anticipation of intergroup encounters. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 107-141. doi:10.1080/10463283.2014.957579

42.

Saguy

Pratto

Dovidio

J. F.

Nadler

(2009). Talking about power: Group power and the desired content of intergroup interactions. In Demoulin

Leyens

J.-P.

Dovidio

J. F.

(Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 213-232). New York: Psychology Press.

43.

Seitz-Wald

(2010). Beck: The census is the government’s attempt to “increase slavery.” ThinkProgress. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/03/09/85755/beck-census-slavery/

44.

Sidanius

Pratto

(1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

45.

Sniderman

P. M.

Piazza

(1993). The scar of race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

46.

Sperry

(2015, July 18). Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database. New York Post. Retrieved from http://nypost.com/2015/07/18/obama-has-been-collecting-personal-data-for-a-secret-race-database/

47.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worschel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

48.

Unzueta

M. M.

Knowles

E. D.

(2012). Diversity is what you want it to be: How social-dominance motives affect construals of diversity. Psychological Science, 23, 303-309. doi:10.1177/0956797611426727

49.

Whitehead

J. W.

(2010). The race question on the 2010 census raises serious questions. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/the-race-question-on-the_b_502903.html

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.48 MB

Taking Race Off the Table

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material