An Independent Work in
Psychology Project

Abstract

We hypothesized that varying the race and prejudice level of a famous individual would alter participants' reactions to the individual, evaluation of the individual, and participants' performance on numerous measures of racism. One-hundred and fourteen White undergraduate students participated in a 2 x 2 (race of the famous individual: black or white x prejudice level of the individual's statement: prejudiced or non-prejudiced) independent groups factorial design. Our results showed that, for high-prejudiced famous figures, participants had more negative reactions toward the White individual than toward the Black, and felt significantly guiltier after reading the White individual's statement than after reading the Black's. Further, the participants expressed less prejudice after being exposed to the high-prejudiced White individual than when exposed to the low-prejudiced White individual, contrary to our predictions. These results demonstrate that exposure to extreme opinions of high-prejudiced in-group members may actually reduce the expression of racism.

I would like to thank Tamara Brown and Margo Monteith for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

What is “racism” and what role does it play in today's society? Results from large-scale surveys indicate that Whites' self-reported racial attitudes toward Blacks have become substantially more positive during recent decades (Campbell, 1971; Greeley & Sheatsley, 1971; Kluegel & Smith, 1986; Taylor, Sheatsley, & Greeley, 1978; Schuman, Stech, Bobo, & Krysan, 1997). Also, modern legislature has made it illegal to discriminate against Blacks for group membership or job opportunities, and has created a politically correct movement in which obvious expressions of prejudice are generally unacceptable and favorable treatment toward minorities is fostered (Blanchard, Lilly, & Vaughn, 1991; D'Souza, 1991; Monteith, Deneen, & Tooman, 1996; Plant & Devine, 1998).

With this in mind, McConahay and Hough (1976) developed the social psychological theory of modern racism, which claims that there are two types of

racism: an old-fashioned form of racism consisting of ideas prominent during the early 1900's and modern racism resulting from ideas embraced during the 1960's civil rights movement. Further, McConahay, Hardee and Batts (1981) have shown that participants are able to recognize questions concerning old-fashioned racism as measuring prejudice and are able to adjust their responses when they wish to appear non-prejudiced; however, participants do not recognize questions concerning modern racism as measuring prejudice and answer them consistently, even when placed in a condition designed to generate less-prejudice responses. (More recent findings by Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, and Williams (1995) suggest that the MRS is now a reactive measure, indicating that individuals have become increasingly able to inhibit the expression of socially unpalatable prejudice.) Such findings suggest that racism has not decreased as much as surveys and legislation might suggest, but rather people are able to disguise their prejudice when convenient and have found less overt, more socially acceptable, means of discriminating. If this is the case, then it is especially important to identify factors that affect people's willingness to express prejudice, if we hope to ascertain ways of reducing this expression.

Monteith, Deneen, and Tooman (1996) hypothesized that increasingly politically correct, non-prejudiced social norms are largely responsible for this change in Whites' expressed attitudes toward Blacks. They investigated how low- and high-prejudiced people might alter their expressions of prejudice when presented with a salient social norm. Experimenters approached participants and asked them to complete an opinion poll. They also asked another passerby (a confederate) to participate. Results indicated that when participants heard the confederate give non-prejudiced responses, they also gave non-prejudiced answers. When they heard the confederate give prejudiced responses, high- to moderately-prejudiced participants gave more prejudiced answers. However, the prejudiced confederate did not cause low-prejudiced participants to respond in a more prejudiced manner. In fact, low prejudiced participants expressed less prejudice in their responses. Monteith et al. attributed these last results to the activation of personal norms (Schwartz 1973, 1977). In other words, when exposed to a prejudiced or non-prejudiced stimulus, participants must examine their personal norms in order to respond. This induced self-scrutiny makes them especially aware of their own opinions concerning prejudice and racism and, in turn, enables them to express their point of view more effectively than if they had been exposed to a less salient, less involved stimulus.