Chapter 21. The 90% Full Glass Contests the Bias for Bias<\/p>\n
Abstract<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This chapter captures many of the themes of this book by first summarizing a \u201cstory\u201d common throughout the social sciences.\u00a0 It is a story that emphasizes the role of stereotypes, social beliefs, and interpersonal expectancies in perpetuating and exacerbating demographic inequalities.\u00a0 It points out that, although the scientific evidence does not support it, this \u201cstory\u201d remains highly popular among social scientists for two main reasons: 1) Social psychology\u2019s bias in favor of bias leads to a scientific literature filled with biases, not because laypeople\u2019s 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 If one\u2019s 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\u2019s beliefs are scientific.\u00a0 If those beliefs cannot be disconfirmed, they are not scientific, and one should not pretend that they are.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Bias was real, but small.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
EXCERPT:
\n<\/i><\/b>A Prediction Based on \u201cThe Story\u201d
\nObama\u2019s election does not signal the end of prejudice.\u00a0 Prejudice is alive and well, and will probably stay that way for a very long time.\u00a0 Obama\u2019s election, however, does provide deep, profound evidence disconfirming the \u201cstory\u201d about the power of expectancies, stereotypes, prejudice, etc.\u00a0 No one has ever told this story in exactly this way.\u00a0 But by piecing together various aspects of the story from various places one could easily tell it this way:
\nUnconscious racism is rampant in America (Chen &Bargh, 1997; Greenwald & Krieger, 2006; Kang & Banaji, 2006).\u00a0 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).\u00a0 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,\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a good story, right?\u00a0 It sounds good, it is internally consistent, and it flows well.\u00a0 It clearly, however, has a problem.\u00a0 The prediction based on this story has been disconfirmed by the data.\u00a0 Funny thing data\u2026<\/p>\n
The Other Story
\nNow, one could tell a very different, and (perhaps to some) far less righteously satisfying story:
\nAlthough stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination exist, most people, most of the time, judge individuals on their merits, that is, on their individuating information.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 But the U.S. Presidential elections, including the primaries, provided more than ample opportunity for people to get to know their candidates.\u00a0 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.
\n…
\nData 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.\u00a0 This is almost exactly what is predicted by the bias results shown in Table 6-1.\u00a0 This was the conclusion reached by national surveys conducted by Yahoo\/Stanford University and Gallup before the election (Gallup, 2008; Yahoo News, 2008).\u00a0 And it is the conclusion we reached in our own small-scale study conducted on Rutgers undergraduates during the primaries (Stevens, Cohen, & Jussim, 2008).
\nOf course, it is important to keep in mind what these numbers mean.\u00a0 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\u2019s race.\u00a0 People are not perfect.\u00a0 Bigotry is not dead.\u00a0 But that 94% number puts a smile on my face.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"