One study found when qualifications of job applicants varied, race played a not-so-subtle role in whether a candidate was selected. For strongly qualified candidates, and for weakly qualified candidates, color didn’t seem to matter much. But among ambiguously qualified candidates, white candidates were hired at about the same rates as the highly qualified white candidates, while for ambiguously qualified black candidates the hire rates were cut in half. The article: John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner, “Aversive Racism and Selection Decisions: 1989 and 1999,” Psychological Science 11 (July 2000) 4: 315-319.
The authors
were looking at this one experimental circumstance as part of a larger project,
what they call the “common ingroup identity
model.” They explain it most fully in
Samuel L. Gaertner and John F. Dovidio,
Reducing Ingroup Bias: The
Common Ingroup Identity Model (
p. 3. “What specifically is aversive racism? In contrast to “old-fashioned” racism, which is blatant, aversive racism represents a subtle, often unintential, form of bias that characterizes many well-intentioned White Americans who possess strong egalitarian values and who believe that they are nonprejudiced. Aversive racists also possess negative racial feelings and beliefs (which develop through normal cognitive biases and socialization) of which they are unaware or which they try to dissociate from their nonprejudiced self-images. Because aversive racists consciously endorse egalitarian values, they will not discriminate directly and openly in ways that can be attributed to racism; however, because of their negative feelings they will discriminate, often unintentionally, when their behavior can be justified on the basis of some factor other than race (e.g., attributions to a perceived lack of effort of the other person). Thus, aversive racists may regularly engage in discrimination while they maintain a nonprejudiced self-image. The negative feelings that aversive racists have for Blacks do not reflect open hostility or hate. Instead, their reactions involve discomfort, uneasiness, disgust, and sometimes fear. That is, they find Blacks “aversive,” while at the same time find any suggestion that they might be prejudiced “aversive” as well.”
p. 7. “In our work on the Common Ingroup Identity Model, we have proposed that social categorization—specifically how people conceive of group boundaries—is a key factor. We have attempted to reduce intergroup bias by changing group members’ cognitive representations from different groups to one group. This framework is what this book is about.
p. 16. Others have studied the degree to which “intergroup bias is expressed more as ingroup favoritism than outgroup derogation and more on positive than negative dimentions…. We propose, however, that the particular motivations of aversive racists help to account for this pattern of bias of Whites toward Blacks.”
p. 29-31, more on that notion that perhaps discrimination has more to do with ingroup favoritism rather than aversive racism. The evidence they found shows that “Blacks were treated differently than Whites only when the forces to act favorably were weak….” Similarly, tradition scales for measuring prejudice work well with traditional racism, but not so well with aversive racism. They give the example of a Black man who sued an employer for wrongful termination. Yes, he did do something wrong and got placed on probation, and yes he did screw up a little while on probation; but he argued a White man with a similar record was reassigned within the company, got an extra chance. So he was treated fairly with respect to the company policies, but not fairly with respect to the comparison with this other case. He lost his suit. The laws are based on the notion that discrimination is an act directed toward an outgroup member, and do little about ingroup favoritism.
p. 155/6. “Aversive racists consciously endorse egalitarian values, but, because of almost unavoidable cognitive, motivational, and sociocultural processes, they also develop unconscious negative feelings and beliefs about Blacks. These negative feelings are expressed in subtle, indirect, and rationalizable / ways that protect the aversive racist’s nonprejudiced self-image yet ultimately disadvantages Blacks…. Although its manner of expression is indirect and subtle, the consequences of aversive racism are as insidious as those of overt racism: the systematic restriction of social and economic opportunities for Blacks.”
p. 156/7. The authors have experimented with ways to shift identification to one group, to build a common group identity, and report that this reduces instances of bias. “For instance, we found that through similar dress or dress emphasizing common university affiliation, integrated seating arrangements, common group names and other manipulations designed to enhance conceptions of a single, common en-/-tity, participants were more likely to conceive of the groups as one group and less as two groups.” And, these produced lower levels of bias.
There are, of course, difficulties making this happen in the real world. As they note, p. 166, “efforts to create a single superordinate identity, though well-intentioned, may threaten one’s social identity, which in turn can intensify intergroup bias and conflict.” They note a study of Black football players wearing the new superordinate group’s clothing colors, having a decisive effect on their own and on Whites’ perceptions of them being in one group. Does it always mean ‘acting white?’ Attempting to maintain dual identities is a complicated negotiation, among groups and within one individual, and the authors do not have an answer for how to do it.
p. 181. “We propose…that the negative feelings and beliefs [in aversive racism] will often be expressed subtly and indirectly…. (A) major motive of Whites in interracial situations is to avoid wrong-doing…. (W)e have found across a variety of different studies that Whites typically do not discriminate against Blacks in situations in which norms for appropriate behaviors are clearly defined.” OK, so when the implications are obvious, people can avoid discrimination. What about the not-so-obvious? That is where they emphasize “the importance of establishing positive interpersonal and intergroup motivations rather than simply suppressing negative motivations…. (T)he recognition of a common ingroup identity potentially changes the motivational orientation of aversive racists from trying to avoid wrong-doing to trying to do what’s right.”