Racial prejudice predicts opposition to Obama and his health care reform plan

The present study examines the relationship between racial prejudice and reactions to President Barack Obama and his policies. Before the 2008 election, participants’ levels of implicit and explicit anti-Black prejudice were measured. Over the following days and months, voting behavior, attitudes toward Obama, and attitudes toward Obama’s health care reform plan were assessed. Controlling for explicit prejudice, implicit prejudice predicted a reluctance to vote for Obama, opposition to his health care reform plan, and endorsement of specific concerns about the plan. In an experiment, the association between implicit prejudice and opposition to health care reform replicated when the plan was attributed to Obama, but not to Bill Clinton—suggesting that individuals high in anti-Black prejudice tended to oppose Obama at least in part because they dislike him as a Black person. In sum, our data support the notion that racial prejudice is one factor driving opposition to Obama and his policies.     

God and Country: The Partisan Psychology of the Presidency,Religion, and Nation

Overt love of God and country have seemingly been prerequisites to be president in the United States in recent decades, if not always. Indeed, the 2008 presidential race was replete with campaign messages showcasing such perspectives—that Barack Obama and John McCain were religiously faithful and deeply patriotic. Scholarship demonstrates the potential political power of explicit appeals to America and Christianity; however, little research has examined (a) citizens' perceptions of candidates' ties to faith and nation and (b) how these impressions may be related to electoral attitudes and intended vote. We address this gap, measuring both explicit and implicit indicators of the Christian‐ness and American‐ness of Obama and McCain. We expected and found that both explicit and—in a final‐entry regression position—implicit perceptions of these traits related to voters' overall candidate attitudes and intended vote choice and that they were connected significantly more strongly for our sample of self‐described Republicans than Democrats. Results illuminate these partisan differences and raise questions about their implications for U.S. presidential politics in years to come.     

Looking at others through implicitly or explicitly prejudiced eyes

It is well known that we utilize internalized representations (or schemas) to direct our eyes when exploring visual stimuli. Interestingly, our schemas for human faces are known to reflect systematic differences that are consistent with one's level of racial prejudice. However, whether one's level or type of racial prejudice can differentially regulate how we visually explore faces that are the target of prejudice is currently unknown. Here, White participants varying in their level of implicit or explicit prejudice viewed Black faces and White faces (with the latter serving as a control) while having their gaze behaviour recorded with an eye-tracker. The results show that, regardless of prejudice type (i.e., implicit or explicit), participants high in racial prejudice examine faces differently than those low in racial prejudice. Specifically, individuals high in explicit racial prejudice were more likely to fixate on the mouth region of Black faces when compared to individuals low in explicit prejudice, and exhibited less consistency in their scanning of faces irrespective of race. On the other hand, individuals high in implicit racial prejudice tended to focus on the region between the eyes, regardless of face race. It therefore seems that racial prejudice guides target-race specific patterns of looking behaviour, and may also contribute to general patterns of looking behaviour when visually exploring human faces.     

Revisiting the Obama Effect: Exposure to Obama reduces implicit prejudice

The present research experimentally evaluated whether exposure to Barack Obama, a positive counter-stereotypic exemplar, can result in a decrease in implicit anti-Black prejudice among non-Black participants. In order to undo any existing influence of exposure to Obama, we first exposed some participants to negative Black exemplars. Participants were assigned to one of three conditions where they were exposed subtly to negative Black exemplars, to negative Black exemplars and then Obama, or to neutral X's (i.e., control). Participants who were only primed with negative Black exemplars showed more implicit negativity toward Black people compared to the control group. Participants exposed to the same negative Black exemplars and then Obama showed a decrease in implicit racial bias levels compared to those in the negative exemplar only condition, providing experimental evidence that exposure to Obama can decrease implicit racial bias levels. These findings indicate that even subtle exposure to a positive, counter-stereotypic exemplar can reduce implicit prejudice.     

AMPing Racial Attitudes: Comparing the Power of Explicit and Implicit Racism Measures in 2008

In 2008, ANES included for the first time—along with standard explicit measures of old‐fashioned and symbolic racism—the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP), a relatively new implicit measure of racial attitudes. This article examines the extent to which four different measures of racial prejudice (three explicit and one implicit) predict public opinion during and after the 2008 election, including Americans' views towards several racial policy issues, their evaluations of, and feelings toward, Barack Obama, and their attitudes toward a Black president in general. Oversamples of African American and Latino respondents in the 2008 ANES enable us to broaden our tests of these measures beyond traditional White samples. We find that racial prejudice played an important role for all racial/ethnic groups but that the traditional explicit measures of racism are by far the stronger predictors for all of our dependent variables (compared to the new implicit measure) for both White and Black respondents. Surprisingly, the AMP adds clear explanatory power only to models in the Latino sample.     

Racial Attitudes Predicted Changes in Ostensibly Race‐Neutral Political Attitudes Under the Obama Administration

Past research demonstrated that racial prejudice played a significant role in the 2008 presidential election, but relatively less is known about the relationship between prejudice and public opinion throughout the Obama administration. In the present research, we examined not only whether racial attitudes were associated with evaluations of Mr. Obama and his administration, but also whether they may have influenced the development of more general political attitudes during the early years of the Obama administration. We investigated this question using panel data from a nationally representative sample of Americans interviewed between September 2008 and July 2010. Racial attitudes measured prior to the election predicted early disapproval of President Obama's handling of important issues. Early disapproval of President Obama's performance, in turn, predicted later perceptions of whether the state of the nation was improving. Further, the divergence between high‐prejudice and low‐prejudice individuals in their perceptions of the state of the nation became greater over time, consistent with the idea that racial attitudes were more powerfully expressed in political judgments as time passed.     

The effect of Obama saliency on individual-level racial bias: Silver bullet or smokescreen?

President Obama's election has been construed as a potentially positive force for intergroup relations, but this issue has not been previously addressed experimentally. In experiment 1, conducted 4-5 months after the election, White participants were primed with either President Obama or nature before completing a variety of race-related measures. Results indicated that priming Obama did not influence implicit racial bias or internal motivation to control prejudice. However, consistent with exemplar and symbolic racism theories, participants primed with President Obama expressed greater agreement with the tenets of symbolic racism and were more reluctant to accept the possibility that they personally harbored subtle racial bias. Experiment 2, conducted 21 months after the election, replicated the Obama effects from experiment 1 and showed that priming another Black exemplar (Oprah) also increased symbolic racism. Results suggest that highly successful Black exemplars currently serve as a smokescreen for symbolic and subtle racial biases.     

The Mediating Role of Information Search in the Relationship Between Prejudice and Voting Behavior

Evidence on the extent to which prejudice serves as a barrier to black and Latino candidates for office is mixed. Some research has found that black and Latino candidates are disadvantaged in terms of their chances of winning election and that they are evaluated differently by voters, while other findings suggest that this may not be the case. This article examines the effects of racial prejudice on candidate evaluation and voting behavior. It uses a unique experimental design to test for direct effects of prejudice on candidate evaluation and voting behavior, as well as indirect effects of prejudice on these variables via the information that subjects seek out. I find that subjects higher in symbolic racism are less likely to vote “correctly” when their preferences most closely align with a black or Latino candidate and that they rate minority candidates more negatively than their white counterparts. I also find that subjects high in prejudice search for less information about minority candidates and that this less robust information search mediates the relationship between prejudice and candidate evaluation and vote measures. Results also suggest that increased information search may mitigate the effects of prejudice on correct voting.     

Who Voted for Whom? Comparing Supporters of Obama and McCain on Value Types and Personality Traits

This study investigates the personalities and values of Obama and McCain supporters in the 2008 election. A total of 278 American participants completed the Big Five Inventory and the Portrait Values Questionnaire along with demographic items. For value types, Obama supporters were more likely to endorse universalism values and less likely to endorse tradition, conformity, and security values compared with McCain supporters. With regard to personality traits, Obama supporters scored higher on agreeableness and lower on conscientiousness than did McCain supporters. As predicted, logistic regression revealed that values were better predictors of voting preference than were personality traits. These findings demonstrate the importance of individual differences in political preferences and are discussed with regard to findings in other cultures.     

Implicit (and explicit) racial attitudes barely changed during Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and early presidency

As a high-status, omnipresent Black exemplar, Barack Obama and his rise to the presidency of the United States may have induced a cultural shift in implicit racial attitudes, much like controlled exposures to positive Black and negative White exemplars have done in the laboratory (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001). With a very large, heterogeneous sample collected daily for 2.5 years prior to, during and after the 2008 election season (N = 479,405), we observed very little evidence of systematic change in implicit and explicit racial attitudes overall, within subgroups, or for particular notable dates. Malleability of racial attitudes - implicit or explicit - may be conditional on more features than the mere presence of high-status counter-stereotypic exemplars.     

Social antecedents of children's implicit prejudice: Direct contact,extended contact,explicit and implicit teachers' prejudice

Recent research has shown that children display implicit prejudice at least by age six (Baron & Banaji, 2006). In the present study, we investigated some potential antecedents of children's implicit intergroup attitudes: direct contact, extended contact, explicit and implicit racial attitudes of children's favourite teacher. Participants were Italian elementary school students. Results showed that, unexpectedly, direct contact increased negative implicit attitudes toward immigrants; extended contact reduced implicit prejudice only among those with less direct contact experiences. In addition, teachers' implicit (but not explicit) prejudice predicted children's implicit prejudice. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed, together with the importance of the social environment in the formation of children's implicit intergroup attitudes.     

Why are some individuals not racially biased? Susceptibility to affective conditioning predicts nonprejudice toward blacks

Two studies investigated the psychological underpinnings of racial nonbias, defined as extremely low or null bias on measures of implicit and explicit racial attitudes. In Study 1, racially nonbiased Whites showed differential susceptibility to affective conditioning compared with subjects with greater bias. A significant two-way interaction emerged, indicating that nonbiased individuals were significantly less likely than other individuals to acquire negative affective associations to neutral stimuli in a classical conditioning paradigm, but were more likely than other individuals to acquire positive affective associations to neutral stimuli. This pattern of findings was replicated in Study 2, in which the identification of nonbiased Whites was facilitated by their nomination by an African American acquaintance. Implications for bias formation and prejudice reduction are discussed.     

Endorsing Obama licenses favoring Whites

Three studies tested whether the opportunity to endorse Barack Obama made individuals subsequently more likely to favor Whites over Blacks. In Study 1, participants were more willing to describe a job as better suited for Whites than for Blacks after expressing support for Obama. Study 2 replicated this effect and ruled out alternative explanations: participants favored Whites for the job after endorsing Obama, but not after endorsing a White Democrat, nor after seeing Obama’s photo without having an opportunity to endorse him. Study 3 demonstrated that racial attitudes moderated this effect: endorsing Obama increased the amount of money allocated to an organization serving Whites at the expense of an organization serving Blacks only for participants high in a measure of racial prejudice. These three studies suggest that expressing support for Obama grants people moral credentials [Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33-43], thus reducing their concern with appearing prejudiced.     

Gender differences in implicit prejudice

In three experiments (n=131), we examined gender differences in implicit (and explicit) racial prejudice employing priming of immigrant and Swedish facial photographs without attention or without awareness. Implicit prejudice was defined as the degree of negativity expressed toward a person described in a subsequent ambiguous story in an impression formation task. We found, contrary to our hypothesis, that women displayed systematically higher implicit prejudice than men in all three experiments, although men scored higher on explicit prejudice than women. The results are discussed against the background of related prejudice research, the dissociation of implicit and explicit prejudice, and gender differences in cognitive functioning, especially in the processing of pictorial stimuli.     

Differences in Anglo and Asian Australians' explicit and implicit prejudice and the attenuation of their implicit in-group bias

Research has shown that not only are minority groups capable of possessing implicit and explicit prejudice but that the study of their attitudes provides unique insight into the nature of prejudice. The current study found that in an Australian context, Asian participants displayed significantly less implicit prejudice and significantly greater explicit prejudice than their Anglo counterparts. This finding provided further evidence of the dissociation of explicit and implicit attitudes, specifically in regard to their predication. In addition, the attenuation of the implicit prejudice of both the Anglo majority and Asian minority group members was investigated. Brief exposure to positive out-group exemplars was found to attenuate the implicit bias of Asian but not Anglo participants, suggesting that this technique may be contingent upon more fundamental prejudice-reducing measures and providing further support that the undermining of implicit biases requires long-term, effortful processes.     

The Obama effect: Decreasing implicit prejudice and stereotyping

This project explores the impact of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and the resulting high levels of exposure to a positive, counter-stereotypic Black exemplar, on prejudice and stereotyping among non-Black participants. We found dramatically decreased levels of implicit anti-Black prejudice and stereotyping as compared with bias observed previously at the same institutions and in the literature. Providing some insight why the bias was reduced, Study 1 demonstrated that participants had positive Black exemplars come to mind or anticipated that other people have positive exemplars come to mind when they thought of Black people and this was associated with low levels of racial prejudice. Our second study revealed that participants who had qualities strongly associated with Obama as a political figure (e.g., president) activated when they were primed with “Black” had lower levels of implicit prejudice. These findings indicate that the extensive exposure to Obama resulted in a drop in implicit bias.     

Evaluations of presidential performance: Race, prejudice, and perceptions of Americanism

Earlier research suggests that despite President Obama's election, racial prejudice persists and continues to shape reactions to his presidency. The current work examines the role of Whites’ prejudice in shaping perceptions of Obama's Americanism, and ultimately evaluations of his performance. Specifically, this research proposes that “how American” Obama is perceived will mediate the relationship between racial prejudice and evaluations of his performance for White, but not Black participants and only for Obama and not for Vice-President Biden. Data were collected from 295 Black or White students surveyed 1 year after Obama's election. Supportive of our hypotheses, racial prejudice predicted Whites’ negative evaluations of Obama's performance, and this relationship was mediated by how American Obama was perceived. Additionally, these relationships were not obtained among Black participants or when Blacks or Whites evaluated the Americanism and job performance of Vice-President Biden.     

Facing prejudice: implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat

We propose that social attitudes, and in particular implicit prejudice, bias people's perceptions of the facial emotion displayed by others. To test this hypothesis, we employed a facial emotion change-detection task in which European American participants detected the offset (Study 1) or onset (Study 2) of facial anger in both Black and White targets. Higher implicit (but not explicit) prejudice was associated with a greater readiness to perceive anger in Black faces, but neither explicit nor implicit prejudice predicted anger perceptions regarding similar White faces. This pattern indicates that European Americans high in implicit racial prejudice are biased to perceive threatening affect in Black but not White faces, suggesting that the deleterious effects of stereotypes may take hold extremely early in social interaction.     

How “American” is Barack Obama? The Role of National Identity in a Historic Bid for the White House

Against the backdrop of the 2008 presidential election, we examined the extent to which the American identity was implicitly and explicitly associated with Barack Obama compared to Tony Blair (Study 1), Hillary Clinton (Study 2), and John McCain (Studies 3 and 4). When conscious control was relatively limited and targets were categorized based on race, the American identity was less strongly associated with Obama than with the other candidates. This effect was stronger than when the candidates were categorized based on their personal identity (Studies 1–4), gender (Study 2), political affiliation (Study 3), or age (Study 4). In addition, the extent to which candidates were differentiated in terms of implicit and explicit associations with the American identity predicted the relative willingness to actively support them.     

The relationship between parental racial attitudes and children’s implicit prejudice

Although many researchers assume that implicit racial attitudes develop via exposure to prejudicial socializing agents (e.g., parents, peers, and the media) starting in childhood, there is a dearth of research on implicit attitudes in children. This study looks at the effect of one socializing agent—parents—on children’s or implicit racial prejudice. Specifically, we examine Allport’s (1954) contention that children’s identification with their parents moderates the intergenerational transmission of prejudice. Fourth- and fifth-grade children completed measures of implicit and explicit pro-White/anti-Black prejudice, as well as a survey assessing child-parent identification. Parents completed a survey that measured their attitudes toward Blacks. As hypothesized, we found greater correspondence between parents’ prejudice and children’s prejudice among children who were highly identified with their parents than less identified children.