Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-1
Antiracism: Development and validation of a measure designed to identify White Americans who proactively fight to end discrimination toward Black Americans
Despite reductions in traditional racial prejudice among non-Hispanic and non-Latino White Americans, Black Americans regularly experience discrimination. We argue that bias persists because although many White Americans espouse nonracist beliefs, far fewer actively work to combat the societal and institutional discrimination that impedes social change. In the current work, we were interested in identifying and measuring the belief systems associated with White Americans’ active participation in the fight against racial discrimination. In six studies, we developed and validated a measure of antiracism to tap into the belief that White people should proactively fight racial discrimination. Results established the convergent and discriminant validity of the measure and confirmed that antiracism was related to, but distinct from, personal nonracist beliefs. Moreover, higher levels of antiracism were associated with greater perceptions of racial discrimination, collective action intentions, willingness to condemn an officer in a racially motivated shooting, support for diversity tax incentives, and likelihood of signing up to receive information about volunteering for an equal rights organization. Results suggest antiracist beliefs may be the key to understanding White Americans’ active support for social change.
AlvarezA. N.LiangC. T. H.NevilleH. A. (2016). The cost of racism for people of color: Contextualizing experiences of discrimination. American Psychological Association.
AronA.AronE. N.SmollanD. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
4.
BakerD. J.BlissettR. S. L. (2018). Beyond the incident: Institutional predictors of student collective action. The Journal of Higher Education, 89, 184–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2017.1368815
5.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. C.LubenskyM. E.ZhouS. (2013). Friend or ally: Whether cross-group contact undermines collective action depends on what advantaged group members say (or don’t say). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213477155
6.
BoatengG. O.NeilandsT. B.FrongilloE. A.Melgar-QuiñonezH. R.YoungS. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
BroadhurstC. J. (2014). Campus activism in the 21st century: A historical framing. New Directions for Higher Education, 2014, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20101
10.
BrownD. D.WeatherholtT. N.BurnsB. M. (2010). Attention skills and looking to television in children from low income families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.04.003
11.
BrownK. T. (2015). Perceiving allies from the perspective of non-dominant group members: Comparisons to friends and activists. Current Psychology, 34, 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9284-8
12.
BrownK. T.OstroveJ. M. (2013). What does it mean to be an ally?: The perception of allies from the perspective of people of color. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2211–2222. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12172
ChiuC.-Y.GelfandM. J.YamagishiT.ShteynbergG.WanC. (2010). Intersubjective culture: The role of intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375562
16.
CraigM.A.RichesonJ.A. (2016). Stigma-based solidarity: Understanding the psychological foundations of conflict and coalition among members of different stigmatized groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415611252
17.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA.O’BrienL. (2002).s Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.3.359
18.
CrandallC. S.MillerJ. M.WhiteM. H. (2018). Changing norms following the 2016 U.S. presidential election: The Trump effect on prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617750735
19.
CrowneD. P.MarloweD. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
20.
CurtinN.McGartyC. (2016). Expanding on psychological theories of engagement to understand activism in context(s). Journal of Social Issues, 72, 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12164
21.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250923
22.
DixonJ.DurrheimK.TredouxC. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 697–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.697
23.
DixonJ.LevineM.ReicherS.DurrheimK. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002214
24.
DoesS.DerksB.EllemersN. (2011). Thou shalt not discriminate: How emphasizing moral ideals rather than obligations increases Whites’ support for social equality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.024
25.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.SaguyT. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308326751
26.
DovidioJ.F.JohnsonJ.D.GaertnerS.L.PearsonA.R.SaguyT.Ashburn-NardoL. (2010). Empath and intergroup relations. In MikulincerM.ShaverP.R. (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp.393-408). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
27.
DruryB. J.KaiserC. R. (2014). Allies against sexism: The role of men in confronting sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12083
28.
DunnT. J.BaguleyT.BrunsdenV. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
29.
DurrheimK.DixonJ.TredouxC.EatonL.QuayleM.ClackB. (2011). Predicting support for racial transformation policies: Intergroup threat, racial prejudice, sense of group entitlement and strength of identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.723
30.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
31.
GawronskiB.PetersK. R.BrochuP. M.StrackF. (2008). Understanding the relations between different forms of racial prejudice: A cognitive consistency perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 648–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207313729
32.
GlasfordD. E.CaraballoK. L. (2016). Collective action from a distance: Distance shapes how people view victims of injustice and decreases willingness to engage in collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215570505
33.
GoretzkoD. (2019). Exploratory factor analysis: Current use, methodological developments and recommendations for good practice. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00300-2
HancockG. R.AnJ. (2020). A closed-form alternative for estimating ω reliability under unidimensionality. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 18, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2019.1656049
36.
HayesA. F.CouttsJ. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But. . . Communication Methods and Measures, 14, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
HornJ. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
39.
Janoff-BulmanR.SheikhS.BaldacciK. G. (2008). Mapping moral motives: Approach, avoidance, and political orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1091–1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.11.003
40.
Janoff-BulmanR.SheikhS.HeppS. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013779
41.
JostJ. T. (2015). Resistance to change: A social psychological perspective. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 82, 607–636. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/603152/summary
42.
JostJ. T.BeckerJ.OsborneD.BadaanV. (2017). Missing in (collective) action: Ideology, system justification, and the motivational antecedents of two types of protest behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417690633
43.
JostJ. T.Chaikalis-PetritsisV.AbramsD.SidaniusJ.van der ToornJ.BrattC. (2012). Why men (and women) do and don’t rebel: Effects of system justification on willingness to protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211422544
44.
KahnK. B.MartinK. D. (2016). Policing and race: Disparate treatment, perceptions, and policy responses. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10, 82–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12019
KatzI.HassG. R. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.893
47.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823
KendiI. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. Random House.
50.
KimJ.-N.GrunigJ. E. (2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problem solving. Journal of Communication, 61, 120–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01529.x
51.
KlineP. (2013). Handbook of psychological testing. Routledge.
52.
KordeshK. S.SpaniermanL. B.NevilleH. A. (2013). White university students’ racial affect: Understanding the antiracist type. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6, 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030102
53.
KunstmanJ. W.PlantE. A.ZielaskowskiK.LaCosseJ. (2013). Feeling in with the outgroup: Outgroup acceptance and the internalization of the motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033082
54.
LangK.SpitzerA. K.-L. (2020). Race discrimination: An economic perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34, 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.34.2.68
55.
LearyM. R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167283093007
56.
MacCallumR. C.RoznowskiM.NecowitzL. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490
57.
MallettR. K.HuntsingerJ. R.SinclairS.SwimJ. K. (2008). Seeing through their eyes: When majority group members take collective action on behalf of an outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208095400
58.
MalottK. M.SchaefleS.PaoneT. R.CatesJ.HaizlipB. (2019). Challenges and coping mechanisms of Whites committed to antiracism. Journal of Counseling & Development, 97, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12238
59.
McDonaldR. P.HoM.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
60.
MyersM. W.HodgesS. D. (2012). The structure of self–other overlap and its relationship to perspective taking. Personal Relationships, 19, 663–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01382.x
61.
NelsonJ. K. (2015). “Speaking” racism and anti-racism: Perspectives of local anti-racism actors. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38, 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2014.889837
62.
NelsonT. E.SanbonmatsuK.McClerkingH. K. (2007). Playing a different race card: Examining the limits of elite influence on perceptions of racism. Journal of Politics, 69, 416–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00540.x
63.
O’BrienE.KorgenK. O. (2007). It’s the message, not the messenger: The declining significance of Black–White contact in a “colorblind” society. Sociological Inquiry, 77, 356–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2007.00197.x
64.
OstroveJ. M.BrownK. T. (2018). Are allies who we think they are?: A comparative analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48, 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12502
ParadiesY.FranklinH.KowalE. (2013). Development of the Reflexive Antiracism Scale – Indigenous. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32, 348–373. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-03-2012-0017
68.
PieterseA. L.UtseyS. O.MillerM. J. (2016). Development and initial validation of the Anti-Racism Behavioral Inventory (ARBI). Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 29, 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2015.1101534
69.
PlantE. A.DevineP. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811
70.
PlantE. A.DevineP. G. (2001). Responses to other-imposed pro-Black pressure: Acceptance or backlash?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 486–501. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1478
71.
QuillianL.LeeJ. J.HonoréB. (2020). Racial discrimination in the U.S. housing and mortgage lending markets: A quantitative review of trends, 1976–2016. Race and Social Problems, 12, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-019-09276-x
72.
RadkeH. R. M.KutlacaM.SiemB.WrightS. C.BeckerJ. C. (2020). Beyond allyship: Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24, 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320918698
73.
RasinskiH. M.CzoppA. M. (2010). The effect of target status on witnesses’ reactions to confrontations of bias. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530903539754
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5-12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
77.
SabucedoJ.-M.DonoM.AlzateM.SeoaneG. (2018). The importance of protesters’ morals: Moral obligation as a key variable to understand collective action. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 418. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00418
78.
SabucedoJ. M.DonoM.GrigoryevD.Gómez-RománC.AlzateM. (2019). Axiological-identitary collective action model (AICAM): A new integrative perspective in the analysis of protest. PLoS ONE, 14, Article e0218350. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218350
79.
ScannellL.GiffordR. (2013). Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45, 60–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511421196
80.
SchooleyR. C.LeeD. L.SpaniermanL. B. (2019). Measuring Whiteness: A systematic review of instruments and call to action. The Counseling Psychologist, 47, 530–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000019883261
81.
SmithL. G. E.ThomasE. F.McGartyC. (2015). “We must be the change we want to see in the world”: Integrating norms and identities through social interaction. Political Psychology, 36, 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12180
82.
SmithL. G. E.PostmesT. (2011). Shaping stereotypical behaviour through the discussion of social stereotypes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 74–98. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X500340
83.
SpaniermanL. B.SmithL. (2017). Roles and responsibilities of White allies: Implications for research, teaching, and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 45, 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000017717712
Van ZomerenM. (2013). Four core social-psychological motivations to undertake collective action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12031
88.
Van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synsthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
89.
Van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2012). On conviction’s collective consequences: Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02000.x
90.
Van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR.BettacheK. (2011). Can moral convictions motivate the advantaged to challenge social inequality?: Extending the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 735–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210395637
91.
WatsonD.FriendR. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027806
92.
WyerN. A. (2010). Selective self-categorization: Meaningful categorization and the in-group persuasion effect. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 452–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365521
93.
ZouL.X.CheryanS. (2017). Two axes of subordination: A new model of racial position. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(5), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000080
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.
