Chapter 21. The 90% Full Glass Contests the Bias for Bias
Abstract
This chapter captures many of the themes of this book by first summarizing a “story” common throughout the social sciences. It is a story that emphasizes the role of stereotypes, social beliefs, and interpersonal expectancies in perpetuating and exacerbating demographic inequalities. It points out that, although the scientific evidence does not support it, this “story” remains highly popular among social scientists for two main reasons: 1) Social psychology’s bias in favor of bias leads to a scientific literature filled with biases, not because laypeople’s judgments are so heavily dominated by biases, but because social psychologists seem to so strongly prefer to study bias; and 2) the story has great political appeal as a rhetorical tool in the fight against oppression. This chapter then distinguishes between moral/religious/philosophical/political beliefs, that are rarely capable of being subjected to empirical test and disconfirmation, from scientific beliefs, that are subject to empirical test and disconfirmation. If one’s belief that stereotypes are inaccurate, or that self-fulfilling prophecies are powerful and pervasive can be disconfirmed by overwhelming evidence of stereotype accuracy or evidence of weak, fragile, and fleeting self-fulfilling prophecies, then one’s beliefs are scientific. If those beliefs cannot be disconfirmed, they are not scientific, and one should not pretend that they are. The chapter ends with an analysis of the Presidential election of 2008, showing that anti-black racism seemed to play the minimal role in the election that would be predicted by the general perspective taken throughout this book. Bias was real, but small. It is about time that the social sciences started acknowledging that, with respect to social beliefs, social perception, and social reality, the big picture is that the social perception glass (of people judging others) is about 90% full.
EXCERPT:
A Prediction Based on “The Story”
Obama’s election does not signal the end of prejudice. Prejudice is alive and well, and will probably stay that way for a very long time. Obama’s election, however, does provide deep, profound evidence disconfirming the “story” about the power of expectancies, stereotypes, prejudice, etc. No one has ever told this story in exactly this way. But by piecing together various aspects of the story from various places one could easily tell it this way:
Unconscious racism is rampant in America (Chen &Bargh, 1997; Greenwald & Krieger, 2006; Kang & Banaji, 2006). Obama can hardly expect to avoid being viewed through the distorting power of stereotypes to bias and twist perception and judgment (Darley & Gross, 1983; Devine, 1995; Fiske, 1998; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). Furthermore, the well-established (sic) tendencies for expectancies to direct attention (Jones, 1986) and lead people to seek expectancy-confirming evidence (Snyder & Swann, 1978) will all but insure that, even if Obama has a stereotype-disconfirming message, many people will not get it. Instead, they will selectively seek out and focus on information that confirms their prior expectations. The research on prejudice, stereotypes, and expectancies, therefore, predicts that the obstacles to electing an African-American President are likely to be prohibitively large.
It’s a good story, right? It sounds good, it is internally consistent, and it flows well. It clearly, however, has a problem. The prediction based on this story has been disconfirmed by the data. Funny thing data…
The Other Story
Now, one could tell a very different, and (perhaps to some) far less righteously satisfying story:
Although stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination exist, most people, most of the time, judge individuals on their merits, that is, on their individuating information. There are many situations where people do not have much individuating information, and in these situations, they undoubtedly act on their prejudices and stereotypes in discriminatory ways. But the U.S. Presidential elections, including the primaries, provided more than ample opportunity for people to get to know their candidates. Although there may be some people who will or will not vote for a candidate primarily on the basis of race, that number is likely to be so small that, at minimum, a strong minority candidate would have as fair a chance as anyone else of being elected President.
…
Data from a variety of sources converges on the conclusion that about 5-7% of the voters did not vote for Obama because he is black. This is almost exactly what is predicted by the bias results shown in Table 6-1. This was the conclusion reached by national surveys conducted by Yahoo/Stanford University and Gallup before the election (Gallup, 2008; Yahoo News, 2008). And it is the conclusion we reached in our own small-scale study conducted on Rutgers undergraduates during the primaries (Stevens, Cohen, & Jussim, 2008).
Of course, it is important to keep in mind what these numbers mean. If, say, 6% of the voters did not vote for Obama because of his race, that is the same thing as saying that 94% chose their candidate for reasons unrelated to Obama’s race. People are not perfect. Bigotry is not dead. But that 94% number puts a smile on my face.