All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Racial Group Norms and Interracial Solidarity: Moving from Ingroup Favoritism to Outgroup Support
Unformatted Document Text:  19 is a = 100-(( ŷ-y min )/(y max - y min )) whereby a represents racial policy support (e.g., affirmative action) in percent, ŷ represents the mean of the predicted values for policy conservatism within a given group, and y min and y max represent the minimum and maximum values of the racial policy conservatism scale respectively. The predicted affirmative action support scores in table 10 and figure 6 were computed in this manner based on different z-scores for closeness towards African Americans and White Americans (either on the implicit or on the explicit levels). Predicted affirmative action scores above 50 percent indicate support for race targeted policies such as affirmative action, values below 50 percent opposition, and the 50 percent mark indicates neutrality (neither support nor opposition). For each Norms-condition, absolute differences are either added or subtracted from the baseline of implicit z-scores (No-Norms condition). For the ‘White Supremacy’ condition, absolute differences in closeness towards blacks are subtracted from the corresponding implicit measure while absolute differences in closeness towards whites are added to the corresponding implicit measure. The same is done for white participants in the ‘Ingroup Favoritism’ condition, while for African American participants the reverse is the case. For all other participants in the ‘Ingroup Favoritism’ the implicit scores are corrected in an anti-black and anti-white direction based on observed absolute differences. For the ‘Pro-Black’ condition, all absolute differences in closeness towards African Americans are added to the corresponding implicit closeness measure. As the simulation moves from ‘White Supremacy’ via ‘Ingroup Favoritism’ to the ‘No-Norms’ condition, a steady increase in support for affirmative action is registered (see weighted total) that reaches its peak under the ‘Pro Black Norm’. Support for Affirmative Action Under Different Racial Norms 25 50 75 White Black Hispanic Asian Other Weighted Total P ercen t o f M axim u m S u p p o rt White Supremacy Ingroup Favoritism No-Norm Pro-Black Norm Figure 6: Simulating support for affirmative action under different racial norms Figure 6 displays the predicted level of support for affirmative action by race under four simulated racial norms conditions. Black bars represent simulated support for affirmative action under the Norm of White Supremacy, dark gray bars under the Norm of Ingroup Favoritism. Light gray bars represent simulated support for affirmative action in the baseline No-Norms condition (based on implicit closeness measures) and white bars represent support under the Pro-Black Norm (holding closeness to Whites constant at

Authors: Craemer, Thomas.
first   previous   Page 19 of 24   next   last



background image
19
is a = 100-((
ŷ-y
min
)/(y
max
- y
min
)) whereby a represents racial policy support (e.g.,
affirmative action) in percent,
ŷ represents the mean of the predicted values for policy
conservatism within a given group, and y
min
and y
max
represent the minimum and
maximum values of the racial policy conservatism scale respectively. The predicted
affirmative action support scores in table 10 and figure 6 were computed in this manner
based on different z-scores for closeness towards African Americans and White
Americans (either on the implicit or on the explicit levels). Predicted affirmative action
scores above 50 percent indicate support for race targeted policies such as affirmative
action, values below 50 percent opposition, and the 50 percent mark indicates neutrality
(neither support nor opposition).
For each Norms-condition, absolute differences are either added or subtracted from the
baseline of implicit z-scores (No-Norms condition). For the ‘White Supremacy’
condition, absolute differences in closeness towards blacks are subtracted from the
corresponding implicit measure while absolute differences in closeness towards whites
are added to the corresponding implicit measure. The same is done for white participants
in the ‘Ingroup Favoritism’ condition, while for African American participants the
reverse is the case. For all other participants in the ‘Ingroup Favoritism’ the implicit
scores are corrected in an anti-black and anti-white direction based on observed absolute
differences. For the ‘Pro-Black’ condition, all absolute differences in closeness towards
African Americans are added to the corresponding implicit closeness measure. As the
simulation moves from ‘White Supremacy’ via ‘Ingroup Favoritism’ to the ‘No-Norms’
condition, a steady increase in support for affirmative action is registered (see weighted
total) that reaches its peak under the ‘Pro Black Norm’.
Support for Affirmative Action Under Different Racial Norms
25
50
75
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Weighted Total
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
u
p
p
o
r
t
White Supremacy
Ingroup Favoritism
No-Norm
Pro-Black Norm
Figure 6: Simulating support for affirmative action under different racial norms
Figure 6 displays the predicted level of support for affirmative action by race under four
simulated racial norms conditions. Black bars represent simulated support for affirmative
action under the Norm of White Supremacy, dark gray bars under the Norm of Ingroup
Favoritism. Light gray bars represent simulated support for affirmative action in the
baseline No-Norms condition (based on implicit closeness measures) and white bars
represent support under the Pro-Black Norm (holding closeness to Whites constant at


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 19 of 24   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.