Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 1
AN INTERVENTION TO REDUCE COLOR-BLIND RACIAL ATTITUDES IN
WHITE COLLEGE STUDENTS
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Ellen Cecelia Bronder
July 8, 2016 Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 2
AN INTERVENTION TO REDUCE COLOR-BLIND RACIAL ATTITUDES IN
WHITE COLLEGE STUDENTS
Dissertation
Ellen Cecelia Bronder
______Advisor Department Chair Dr. Suzette Speight Dr. Paul Levy
______Committee Member Interim Dean of Arts & Sciences Dr. Dawn Johnson Dr. John Green
______Committee Member Dean of Graduate School Dr. Amber Hewitt Dr. Chand Midha
______Committee Member Dr. John Queener
______Committee Member Date Dr. John Zipp Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 3
ABSTRACT Color-blind racial attitudes (CoBRAs) have emerged as the newest form of racism. Individuals with these attitudes deny the importance of race and therefore the existence of racism. CoBRAs have negative consequences for Whites and People of
Color. Consequences for Whites include poor interracial interactions, increased race- based judgments in education and clinical settings, increased affective costs such as fear and guilt and increased isolation from diverse others. There have been few efforts within the literature to change colorblind racial attitudes with experimental intervention techniques and to determine the temporal stability of these changes. Also, there have been no efforts to measure the practical significance of changes by examining the relationship of changes in CoBRAs with changes in potential activism. A sample of
White college students was collected and completed several self-report measures including the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale, the Motivation the Respond Without
Prejudice scale, The Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites scale, and the Activism
Orientation Scale. The sample was divided into experimental and control groups and the experimental group received a race-based video and discussion intervention. Data was collected across three time periods: before the intervention, immediately after the intervention and 2 weeks after the intervention.
MANCOVAs were conducted to examine differences between the experimental and control groups, as well as between Time 1 and Time 2. Significant differences were found between groups and the main hypotheses of the study were supported. The results provided evidence that a brief video intervention can reduce color-blind racial attitudes in
White college students. Overall, these findings suggest the importance of continued research in experimental interventions to reduce racism. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…….……………………..…………………...5
II. CHAPTER 2: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE………...………………...12
III. CHAPTER 3: METHODS…………………..…..……………...... 55
IV. CHAPTER 4: RESULTS…………………..…..……………...... 70
V. CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION……………..…..……………...... 80
REFERENCES……………………………………………..…………………………..95
FIGURES……………………………………………………….………………..……114
FIGURE 1. Design………………………….…………………..………………115
APPENDICES…………………………………..………………………………..…...116
APPENDIX A. Intervention Discussion Questions ……………….…………...117
APPENDIX B. Control Discussion Questions …………………….…………..118
APPENDIX C. Demographic Questionnaire……………………...…………....119
APPENDIX D. Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale………………………...... 121
APPENDIX E. Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale………………122
APPENDIX F. Psychosocial Costs of Racism Scale………...………………....123
APPENDIX G. Activism Orientation Scale……….…………………………...124
APPENDIX H. Tables………...…….…...... 125
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 5
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”-William Faulkner
Racism is a pervasive problem that negatively affects the lives of People of Color.
However, racism, racist attitudes and racist behaviors of Whites have evolved through the decades (Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee & Browne, 2000). From early in the formation of our country to the not so distant past, Whites have led centuries of the legal enslavement, oppression, segregation of Blacks and other legalized and overt discrimination
(McConahay, 1986). Multiple generations of Whites have reaped the socioeconomic benefits of this oppression and still do as part of White dominance and privilege (Feagin
& Bennefield, 2014). However, we have moved from blatant “old-fashioned” racism to a newer form of racism (Neville et al., 2000).
Most recently, color-blind racial ideology (CBRI) has been argued to be the foundation for the newest form of racism (Neville, Awad, Brooks, Flores & Bluemel,
2013). In part, the concept of CBRI is fueled from myths of a color-blind justice system
(Sealing, 1998). CBRI emphasizes sameness among the treatment of groups while ignoring systemic issues (e.g., racial discrimination) that make this type of ideology invalid (Neville et al., 2000). CBRI is about denying the importance of race and the existence of racism; it is uniquely motivated by individuals’ needs to appear nonracist
(Bonilla-Silva, 2014; Neville et al., 2013). It is also fueled by the need of Whites to delegitimize the existence of racism in order to protect their own racial privilege (Neville,
Worthington, & Spanierman, 2001). Color-blind racism is thus an extension of this ideology. Although related to older forms of racism (e.g., old-fashioned racism and symbolic racism), color-blind racism is subtle and covert (McConahay, 1986; Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 6
McConahay & Hough Jr., 1976; Neville et al., 2000).
Colorblind racial attitudes (CoBRAs) are defined by “the belief that race should not and does not matter” (Neville et al., 2000, p. 60). CoBRAs are part of the ideology that asserts that race is no longer relevant and that society has eradicated racism, thus making it an issue of the past (Neville, Poteat, Lewis, & Spanierman, 2014). Derived from Frankenberg’s (1993) concepts of color-evasion and power-evasion, Neville et al
(2000) developed a tripartite definition and measurement of CoBRAs includes a denial of the following issues: 1) racial privilege, 2) institutional racism, and 3) discrimination.
Color-blindness is not simply on an individual level, but as a phenomenon that is social, cultural and institutional (Neville et al., 2001).
Although arguments for and against CBRI exist, the negative consequences of holding CoBRAs are well established in the literature. CoBRAs are positively related to prejudice and racial discrimination (Neville et al., 2000; Poteat & Spanierman, 2012).
The deleterious psychological and physiological effects of prejudice and discrimination for Blacks are numerous and well-studied. For instance, multiple studies demonstrate associations between racism and increased depression, anxiety and decreased life satisfaction and self-esteem (Donovan, Galban, Grace, Bennett & Felicie, 2012;
Ponterotto, Utsey, & Pedersen, 2006; Seaton, Caldwell, & Sellers, 2010). Also, the hopelessness, fear and frustration that may be experienced as a result of discrimination, may lead to cardiovascular problems and substance use (Harrell, Hall, & Taliaferro,
2003; Ponterotto et al., 2006). Furthermore, racism reduces access to educational and vocational resources (Vera, Buhin, & Shin, 2006). All of these negative outcomes further contribute to already existing racial disparities in education, socioeconomic status, prison Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 7 incarceration and health (Cox, 2012; Darity Jr., & Hamilton, 2012; O’Connell, 2012;
O’Gorman, 2009; Smedley, Stith, & Nelson, 2002). These negative consequences demonstrate the need for interventions that target color-blind individuals with the aim of educating and increasing awareness to reduce CoBRAs and the bias and prejudice associated with them.
Although less studied, deleterious effects of racism for Whites also exist. Whites experience affective costs as a result of racism such as exaggerated levels of fear and heightened levels of guilt (Kivel, 2011; Spanierman & Heppner, 2004) and social costs such as diminished relationships and isolation from diversity (Goodman, 2001). More specifically, CoBRAs have negative social consequences for Whites during interracial interactions with Whites appearing more biased to Blacks and producing more explicit and implicit racial attitudes (Apfelbaum, Sommers & Norton, 2008; Richeson &
Nussbaum, 2004). Also, those with higher CoBRAs are more likely to make race-based judgments in clinical and educational settings (Biernat & Sesko, 2013; Gushue, 2004).
CoBRAs will be examined alongside the motivation to respond without prejudice, psychosocial costs of racism and activism orientation. Given today’s sociopolitical atmosphere, one in which blatant racism is denigrated and being called a racist is socially damaging, it is ever more important to understand the motivations that drive individuals to respond without prejudice. It is apparent that contemporary norms have likely increasingly inhibited overt expressions of prejudice and discrimination (Neville et al.,
2001), but many have questioned whether these changes are a reflection of genuine nonprejudicial and egalitarian behavior or are simply a compliance with the social pressure to appear nonprejudiced (Butz & Plant, 2009). As a result, individual differences Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 8 in external and internal motivations have been increasingly examined. Distinguishing these differences are important as they explore the true intentions of individuals’ race- based judgments. This is important to our understanding of how to approach changing
CoBRAs (Butz & Plant, 2009).
Another aspect related to changing individuals’ CoBRAs is understanding the costs of racism that exist for them. Spanierman and Heppner (2004) argue that, because
Whites often deny importance of race and the existence of racism, taking the approach of introducing the costs of racism to Whites may be a better strategy in getting Whites to address the negative consequences of racism. The literature describes numerous costs of racism to Whites. On a basic level, D’Andrea (2006) argues that racism compromises the social justice standards that the United States was found upon including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and further contradicts our civic duty to promote liberty and justice for all. In addition, there are practical, legal and policy related negative consequences of racism to Whites, as well as cultural, social, affective and moral consequences. Focusing on the costs of fear, guilt and empathy in Whites, Spanierman and Heppner (2004) argue that these emotional consequences can serve to motivate individuals to change their racial attitudes through increasing racial awareness.
In general, anti-racism has emerged as a way to “ensure equal access to and ability to participate in social, cultural, economic and political life” (Berman & Parodies,
2010, p. 221; Bonnett, 2000; Kivel; 2011). Importantly, many argue that anti-racism needs to start with members of White society because the oppression of Persons of Color cannot change without opening up the discourse on race within the White population Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 9
(Lewis, 2001). As Richard Wright noted in the 1940’s, “There is no negro problem in the
U.S., there is only a white problem (Wright & Kinnamon, 1993).
Opening up Whites to their responsibility in changing racial attitudes and increasing participation in pro-active anti-racism is no easy task. As Derman-Sparks and
Phillips (1997) describe, Whites cannot simply become nonracist by removing themselves from the system of institutional racism, because it is impossible to not participate in it. The system, in which Whites automatically and sometimes unknowingly participate in, needs to be changed not avoided. With a shift away from CBRI, Whites would recognize the impact of race and racism in society and be able to become racial allies in the struggle for equality and justice.
A number of books and articles discuss how individuals can develop and incorporate anti-racist goals and strategies (c.f., Bonnett, 2000; Brandt, 1991; Case, 2012;
Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997; Feagin & Vera, 1995; Goodman, 2001; Kivel, 2011;
McKinney & Feagin, 2003; Pedersen, 2006; Rose, 1996). However, the literature lacks outcome measures of behaviors such as personal and institutional advocacy. Thus, the
Activism Orientation Scale (AOS; Corning & Meyers, 2002) will be utilized to explore individuals’ propensities towards activism behaviors.
Neville et al (2014) argue that although some studies have found that it may be possible to decrease CoBRAs, little is known about relationship of attitudes to activism orientation. They state that future research should focus on the practical consequences of these changes, how they affect observable behavior, and the nature of these changed behaviors (Case, 2012; Neville et al., 2014). Although there is quite a bit of theoretical and qualitative studies regarding the development of anti-racism and behavioral Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 10 responses as a result of identifying as anti-racist, there is a dearth of quantitative research on activism behavior.
Importance to the Field of Counseling Psychology
Counseling psychology has espoused a commitment to multiculturalism and social justice. The values set forth by the Counseling Psychology Model Training Values
Statement Addressing Diversity (Bieschke, 2009) are clear about whom, what and how counseling psychologists should be in terms of diversity. “Trainees and trainers in counseling psychology training programs are expected to be committed to the social values of respect for diversity, inclusion, and equity” (p.642), and “members of the training community are committed to educating each other on the existence and effects of racism, sexism, ageism, heterosexism, religious intolerance, and other forms of invidious prejudice” (p.643). Grus (2009) makes the important point that these values we encounter in our education and training are to be extended throughout our professional life span.
This research project is in line with counseling psychology’s commitment to multiculturalism, inclusion and equity. The aim of this study is to target color-blind racial attitudes (CoBRAs) in Whites via an intervention and examine the potential activism changes that result. Developing a color-blind racism intervention and demonstrating its efficacy through measurement of potential behaviors may promote the values of inclusion and diversity while counteracting the existence and effects of racism.
This study is also connected to the value of social justice, another important value to the field of counseling psychology. Vera and Speight (2003) argued that social justice is an essential element of multiculturalism. Vera and Speight (2003) stated, Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 11
“…social justice is at the heart of multiculturalism in that the existence of
institutionalized racism, sexism, and homophobia is what accounts for the
inequitable experiences of people of color, women, gay, lesbian, and bisexual
people (among others) in the United States. Moreover, discrimination and
prejudice are intimately connected to quality-of-life issues for these groups of
people. Counseling psychologist’s operationalization of multicultural competence
must be grounded in a commitment to social justice that necessitates an expansion
of professional activities beyond individual counseling” (p.254). “Thus,
counseling psychologists should be explicit about aligning with values that
promote social justice, liberation, and community empowerment. This is
particularly necessary of counseling psychologists conducting research with a
multicultural agenda” (p. 266).
This dissertation not only explored issues of racism and privilege, but hopefully added to our knowledge about how these issues can be addressed in order to promote social change.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 12
CHAPTER II
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction and Theory
This literature review examines the development of color-blind racial ideology
(CBRI) within the context of historical racism in the United States. It focuses on the negative consequences of colorblind ideology and the importance of changing color-blind racial attitudes (CoBRAs) via identification, education and intervention.
Bonilla-Silva (2001, p. 22) describes racism as having three components: 1) beliefs about races, 2) attitudes toward races and 3) discrimination against races. Thus, colorblind racial ideology and attitudes will also be explored alongside other cognitive and affective components of racial ideology to create a fuller conceptualization of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. This dissertation will specifically focus on the origins and development of CBRI, the measurement and consequences of CoBRAs and how
CoBRAs are related to motivations to act without prejudice, the psychosocial costs of racism and anti-racist behaviors. This dissertation will also focus on the malleability of
CoBRAs in relation to these research variables, as well as to an anti-racist intervention.
Changes in CoBRAs will be examined longitudinally for temporal stability and anti-racist behaviors will be examined as a function of changes in CoBRAs. These variables have never been examined together and there are no known studies that have examined the malleability of CoBRAs, the temporal stability of these changes and the anti-racist behavioral components of these changes.
Conceptualizing Racism
Racism is not a new phenomenon and has been researched extensively in Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 13 psychological and sociological literature. Racism is a part of a system that involves racial grouping within a hierarchy that produces disparities in advantages between racial groups
(Bonilla-Silva, 1997). This system maintains inequality between groups and can be expressed through stereotypes (racist beliefs), prejudice (racist affect) or discrimination
(racist behaviors). Racism manifests out of a larger system of oppression and is thus linked to privilege, which simultaneously awards advantages to one group while marginalizing other groups (Berman & Paradies, 2010).
Racism, racist attitudes and racist behaviors in Whites have evolved through the centuries. From early in the formation of our country to the not so distant past, Whites have led centuries of the legal enslavement, oppression and segregation of Blacks.
Multiple generations of Whites have reaped the socioeconomic benefits of this oppression and still do while simultaneously continuing to support, albeit passively,
White dominance and privilege (Feagin & Bennefield, 2014). Not long after the passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in 1865 (i.e., the abolishment of slavery), the new era of Jim Crow began to emerge. Blacks continued to be oppressed and purposefully impoverished in a system of segregation and aggressive enforcement of laws targeting Blacks. Segregation was used as a tool not only to discriminate against Blacks, but served to reinforce the sentiment of social dominance within White society (Alexander, 2012; Feagin & Bennefield, 2014). This “old- fashioned” racism, as it is now deemed, consisted of systematic acts of discrimination, segregation and exclusion in both the public and private spheres of society. It also included negative racial stereotypes, directed at Blacks. Eventually, especially because of the changes from the Civil Rights Amendment, overt racism began to become socially Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 14 unpopular. However, prejudice and discrimination did not end.
The end of Jim Crow was signified with the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v.
Board of Education in 1954. This historic case ruled against the racial segregation of school children and had far reaching effects on the broader system of racial discrimination. This move toward racial equality continued on with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. With blatant and overt racism declared illegal, a new system began to emerge, just as Jim Crow had emerged after the abolishment of slavery. Some call the contemporary product of this system, the New Jim
Crow and link it with the continued economic impoverishment, disenfranchisement and mass incarceration of Blacks (Alexander, 2012; Cox, 2012). And as Alexander (2012) asserts, “we have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it (p.2).
This shift in the racial caste is further illustrated by a change in how Whites perceive themselves and ethnic minorities. Knowles, Lowery, Hogan and Chow (2009) state that
“the specific content of racist ideology has mutated from an assertion of White genetic superiority into a claim of Black cultural maladaptation” (p. 858). The contemporary face of racism had changed from a blatant system of openly targeting minorities to a subtle and covert system of oppression. This system can be just as damaging as the overt systems of the past and continues to strengthen the divide between privileged Whites and increasingly disadvantaged People of Color.
In an attempt to understand racism post-Jim Crow and after the Civil Rights
Movement, three conceptualizations of racism have been utilized in the sociological and psychological literature. These included: 1) symbolic racism, 2) modern racism and 3) aversive racism. (McConahay, 1986; McConahay & Hough Jr., 1976; Neville, Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 15
Spanierman & Doan, 2006).
Symbolic racism became a political mainstay post-Civil Rights (McConahay,
1986; McConahay & Hough Jr., 1976; Neville et al., 2006). Symbolic racism is described as an expression of the negative feelings that underlie “old-fashioned” racism.
Specifically, symbolic racism can be described as political belief system that embodies four themes: the beliefs that 1) there is no longer prejudice or discrimination against
Blacks, 2) any failure to progress is the sole responsibility of Blacks, 3) Blacks are too demanding and 4) Blacks have already been given more than they deserve (Sears &
Henry, 2003).
Modern racism extends symbolic racism representing Whites’ hostility towards
Blacks’ anger and continued demands for equality (McConahay, 1986). Modern racism is learned through racial socialization with individuals acquiring racist attitudes from their social context in childhood (Henry, 2010). Also, modern racism is less about threats to
White interests or personal experiences with Blacks and more about a political system that can’t tolerate giving Blacks preferential treatment. To illustrate, affirmative action is a race-based policy created to ameliorate historical injustice committed against women and People of Color. It aids in gaining access to (historically unattainable) resources such as admission to school (Bowen & Bok, 1998). According to opponents to affirmative action, Black students are getting preferential treatment over White students and thus schools are supporting an unfair and discriminatory policy. Thus, to these opponents and modern racists, the problem is not one of race, but one of fairness. Finally, modern racism has its roots in the notion that Blacks violate important American values (Henry,
2010). For example, meritocracy is the belief that with enough hard work one can ascend Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 16 the economic ladder. Meritocracy holds an individual solely responsible for their progress or failure without considering the system. A modern racist, believing in a meritocracy, would not support helping members of marginalized groups gain access to resources.
Thus, if Blacks are economically or otherwise disadvantaged, it is because they did not work hard enough.
Aversive racism occurs when Whites have explicit egalitarian principles and believe that they are nonprejudiced, but also have negative feelings and beliefs (possibly unconscious feelings and beliefs) about Blacks or other disadvantaged groups. Aversive racists espouse fair treatment of all groups, but unconsciously feel uneasy or negative when faced with minorities and may even avoid interracial interactions. When confronted with an interracial interaction, the aversive racist will likely experience discomfort and anxiety (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005). Symbolic, modern and aversive racism describe racial prejudice as including negative attitudes towards minority groups, a sense of ambivalence between these negative attitudes and a more nonprejudiced belief system and a tendency, even for those well-intentioned who aspire to equality, to have racial biases because of a lack of awareness (Jones, 1997; Neville et al., 2000). In addition to these more modern types of racism, another ideology has emerged, color-blind racial ideology (CBRI), which includes aspects of modern racism with the addition of its own distinctive features.
According to Neville et al (2013) a newer ultramodern articulation of racism among Whites has emerged called CBRI. CBRI “emphasizes sameness as a way of rejecting the idea of White racial superiority” and follows the belief that every individual has the same opportunities and thus “any failure to achieve is therefore the fault of People Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 17 of Color themselves” (Frankenberg, 1993, p. 147 & 14; Neville et al., 2013). Neville et al
(2013) argue that, although CBRI overlaps with modern racism’s denial of racism, there is a different motivation behind the denial. Where modern racists will deny racism because they believe that it is a thing of the past, color-blind racists are motivated to deny race and racism to make themselves appear less racist. Neville et al (2013) argues that this new CBRI demands theoretical development. Thus, the primary focus of this dissertation will be this newest form of racism in Whites, CBRI.
Colorblind Racial Ideology (CBRI)
It is important to understand the origins of color-blind racial ideology (CBRI).
Current CBRI originally developed out of the myth that our justice system is and should be colorblind. There is a long history of colorblind rhetoric in our justice system. The icon of Lady Justice stands in many courts throughout the United States. Lady Justice is blindfolded which is meant to symbolize a justice system that is guided by objectivity and not influenced by any identities of those involved. Thus, a justice system that is truly objective would be colorblind. Although, a laudable ideal, history has demonstrated that neither our justice system nor our society has ever been color-blind. Sealing (1998) argued that although there have been attempts in our constitution and justice system to be color-blind, legislatures have continually failed at preventing race-based injustice. This is evidenced from Supreme Court cases that emerged after the Civil War including Plessy v.
Ferguson (1896) that dealt with segregation all the way to recent Supreme Court cases dealing with affirmative action in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action the
Court in 2014. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the court ruled that enforced segregation based on race did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 18
Justice Harlan, a key dissenter in that case, argued that a color-blind approach should be taken in regard to segregation stating, “The Constitution of the United States does not, I think, permit any public authority the right to know the race of those entitled to be protected in the enjoyment of those rights.” Justice Harlan later stated, “Our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens” (as cited in
Sealing, 1998). His dissent came at a time when a color-blind approach may have been an improvement on the blatant state supported racism.
The argument for those that are pro-color-blind versus those that are anti-color- blind follows two basic principles. Supporters of CBRI state that the government should treat all citizens equally. This reflects procedural justice, which prefers equal treatment among individuals despite the fact that this can lead to the continuation of inequalities.
The error here is one that assumes that all citizens are starting from an equal footing. The argument of procedural justice ignores the history of oppression and allows colorblind individuals to continue the mass oppression of ethnic minorities under a veil of equality.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts concluded that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” (Parents Involved in
Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2007). Chief Justice Roberts was clearly espousing the view of procedural justice that ignores historical inequalities and argues that differing treatments based on race is perpetuating racism (Knowles et al.,
2009; James, 2000). The second principle called distributive justice states, citizens who differ from one another, especially those who have experienced the disadvantages of a racist history, should be treated in a way that reduces the inequalities that exist for them.
Distributive justice calls for differences in individual treatment as long as it leads to an Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 19 elimination of unjust disparities (Knowles et al., 2009; James, 2000). The ongoing tension between these two aforementioned principles is evidenced by a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court. On April 22, 2014 in the case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action the Court, the court upheld a state’s ban on affirmative action. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a scathing 57-page dissent to the decision.
Justice Sotomayer asserted that, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination” (Schuette v.
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action the Court, 2014). Justice Sotomayor’s argument clearly supports distributive justice in which disparities caused in part by historical injustice should be dealt with in a manner to reduce these disparities. These contemporary arguments about colorblind laws and policies illustrate the tension between racial attitudes in the face of persistent racism in our society.
Currently, CBRI, through its purposeful denial of race, prevents the reduction of inequalities for People of Color by rationalizing the reason the inequalities exist (James,
2000; Neville et al., 2013). Portales (2003) argues that our Constitution has never been color-blind and that it explicitly contradicts CRBI. Sealing (1998) argued that institutions and the government continue to use this ideal of a color-blind constitution, which perpetuates racial problems in the United States. The unrealized ideals of color-blind justice have become a part of a pervasive rhetoric within contemporary views on CBRI that is far from what its originators intended. The historical ideology of color-blind justice was about promoting objective and fair judicial practices, but contemporary CBRI is specifically about the denial of race and not about objective justice. The difference Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 20 between historical and contemporary ideas of color-blindness was recently illustrated in
Locke’s (2014) commentary on a review article concerning CBRI. Locke asserted that
Neville et al (2013) misunderstands the meaning of color-blindness. According to Locke, color-blindness is not a denial of race, but a metaphorical ideal of an objective reality.
However, Neville and Awad (2014) argue that Locke (2014) is describing historical
CBRI whereas contemporary CBRI is an accepted term among race and racism scholars that describes the contemporary view of racial order in the United States. Neville and
Awad (2014) are clear in their distinction between historical and contemporary CBRI.
This dissertation will focus on the contemporary concept of CBRI.
Much of the literature that explores color-blind racial ideology (CBRI) derives from the field of sociology (e.g., Bonilla-Silva, 2014; Forman, 2004; Frankenberg, 1993).
Prior to the development of Neville et al.’s (2000) construct of color-blind racial attitudes
(CoBRAs), Frankenberg (1993) described color-evasiveness (in lieu of color-blindness) and power-evasiveness in a seminal qualitative study conducted about the social construction of race and Whiteness. Through narratives of White women, she explored the meaning of Whiteness and the ways in which race and racism shaped their lives.
Frankenberg preferred the term color-evasion to highlight the agency involved in choosing to not see color (p. 142). Color-evasion is the denial of race.
Frankenberg described how color-evasion and power-evasion serve to logically explain personal and institutional approaches to the treatment of People of Color. Based on her narrative research she discovered many themes of color-evasion and power- evasion. She points out that racist language is often forgiven if the person is “good” in other spheres of life especially if they did not intend to harm. With this example, Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 21
Frankenberg asserts that burden of proof is put on the intent of the perpetrator rather than the effects on the victim. Similarly, Banks (2014) asserted that the description of racial discrimination as “perceived” centers on the intent of the perpetrator and relegates the victim’s experience to the margins. She compares this to other forms of victimization, stating that we do not call trauma, “perceived trauma” and we do not rely on the intent of the perpetrator to validate a person’s traumatic experience. The use of the term
“perceived discrimination” is itself an example of how CoBRAs have permeated the field of psychology (Banks, 2014).
Bonilla-Silva (2001, p. 90), another sociologist, describes CBRI as part of the new structure of racism. He states that this new structure follows five main elements: 1) a growing covert nature of racial practices, 2) an avoidance of racial terms along with a growing number of claims by Whites of “reverse racism,” 3) the elaboration of a racial agenda over political matters, 4) an inability to detect methods that reproduce racial inequality and finally, 5) a re-visitation of characteristics from Jim Crow era race relations.
In a qualitative study, Bonilla-Silva (2001) surveyed 323 White residents from the
Detroit area on their racial attitudes. Sixty-seven respondents were randomly selected for one hour long structured interviews. Four major themes were drawn from the interviews.
First, abstract liberalism qualified as a belief in equality for all individuals at all times.
This type of belief would counteract the notion of affirmative action with the belief that it shows preference based on racial group and it thus not equal. Secondly, biologization of culture was represented. This type of belief puts the sole blame on the individual’s value system for any disadvantage they may be experiencing. Third, normalizing of situations Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 22 that reflect White supremacy is another process. This type of belief would support an idea that segregation is natural because of the idea that people want to live with other people life them and thus ignoring the role of racial discrimination in segregation. Finally, the fourth major theme that emerged was an overall minimization of racism and discrimination. This is illustrated in individuals’ beliefs that although racism might exist, it is rare and difficult to even find (Bonilla-Silva, 2001, p. 140; Bonilla-Silva, Lewis, &
Embrick, 2004). The themes that Frankenberg (1993) and Bonilla-Silva (2001) discuss form the contemporary conceptualization of CBRI.
Colorblind Racial Attitudes (CoBRAs)
Neville et al (2000) developed the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale that captures a significant portion of color-blind ideology (CBRI). Their measure refers to color-blind racial attitudes (CoBRAs) as an unawareness of race, racism and aspects of a racial society. This unawareness is termed blindness, thus a person with high color-blind attitudes is “blind” to the race and racism that exists around them via denial, distortion and/or minimization (Neville et al., 2006). All three factors (i.e., racial privilege, institutional discrimination and blatant racial issues) of the CoBRAs are consistent with
Frankenberg’s (1993) discussion of power-evasion (Neville et al., 2000). These three factors are: 1) racial privilege, 2) institutional discrimination, and 3) blatant racism. The
Racial Privilege subscale measures the denial of racial privilege. The Institutional
Discrimination subscale measures the limited awareness of the implications of institutional discrimination and exclusion. The Blatant Racial Issues subscale measures the unawareness of general and pervasive racial discrimination. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 23
CoBRAs are the belief that race does not matter. Although this perspective alone may not indicate negative attitudes towards any one race, this notion is problematic in a number of ways. First, the fact that racism still exists in our society means that we cannot ignore race (Neville et al., 2000). Also, a denial of the importance of race allows for the denial of racial privilege. This denial of privilege is a hallmark of colorblind racial attitudes. Whites are not only unaccustomed to identifying and naming their race (i.e.,
Whiteness), but they are often oblivious or unable to accept the disadvantages minorities experience while concurrently experiencing the privileges that are inherent in being
White (Frankenberg, 1993). Furthermore, choosing to connect with a person while choosing not to “see” a person’s race is in effect denigrating their race by overlooking it
(Frankenberg, 1993, p. 147). Finally, the very notion of race not mattering devalues racial differences, when in fact; there is a lot to be gained by valuing diversity. As bell hooks said, “beloved community is formed not by the eradication of difference but by its affirmation, by each of us claiming the identities and cultural legacies that shape who we are and how we live in the world” (p. 265).
Research on Color-Blind Ideology and Color-Blind Racial Attitudes
Many studies have demonstrated having high colorblind racial attitudes
(CoBRAs) is related to having higher levels of modern racism, racial intolerance and lower cultural appreciation. Richeson and Nussbaum (2004) found that individuals exposed to a color-blind perspective had greater automatic racial bias on implicit tests and explicit tests. Correll, Park and Smith (2008) found that those that denied race appeared less friendly in interracial interactions. In another example, Apfelbaum et al
(2008) found that White’s avoidance of talking about race in interracial interactions Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 24 predicted negative nonverbal behavior. Collectively, this research demonstrates some of the negative consequences of having colorblind racial attitudes. CoBRAs are not only related to other types of racism, but also research shows that the very act of denying race is related to negative racial reactions.
In 2008, Atwater explored, as part of a review of the literature, the effects of a color-blind perspective between teachers and students in the classroom. She described a number of studies that demonstrated the negative effect of color-blind ideology on students of color. First, in an early and comprehensive multi-year ethnographic study,
Schofield (1986) examined a middle school that opened as a desegregated institution
(50% White and 50% Black) in which the teachers outwardly expressed a color-blind perspective. During interviews, teachers denied noticing their student’s race and believed that the students also didn’t notice race. Race was found to be a taboo topic and the teachers believed that there was equal treatment among the students. However, themes of bias in the teachers eventually emerged in negative stereotyping of the Black students
(e.g., academically weak) and through increased discipline of Black students.
Furthermore, themes of a White status quo were continued. For example, there was no acknowledgement or focus on minorities within the academic curriculum, thereby invalidating the experiences of fifty-percent of the student body (Atwater, 2008;
Schofield, 1986). Overall, this review illustrated the negative consequences of teachers ignoring race in school on two levels. Denying race led to exclusive practices within the curriculum as well as mistreatment of Black students.
In a more recent ethnographic study of a mostly White middle class suburban school, Lewis (2001) found similar colorblind racial ideology with teachers denying the Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 25 importance of race and supporting a color-blind approach that impacted the few students of color at the school by supporting beliefs of the inferiority of students of color. Overall,
Atwater (2008) explains that a major reason that CBRI is supported is because without it there is fear of conflict and a fear of seeming prejudiced. CoBRAs may provide an easy
“out” to avoid dealing with the reality of race in the classroom (Atwater, 2008; Lewis,
2001). Although ignoring and denying race may be more “comfortable” for teachers, it is perpetuating a system of invalidation and stereotyping at the expense of the lives of students of color.
Worthington, Navarro, Loewy, and Hart (2008) examined the impact of CoBRAs and social dominance orientation on students’ perceptions of their campus climate for
People of Color. Participants included 144 undergraduate, graduate and professional students, which was a majority White (65.3%) and female (63.2%) with ages ranging from 18 to 53. Utilizing the Assessment of Campus Climate for Underrepresented
Groups (URG; Rankin, 2000), the Social Dominance Orientation Scale (SDS; Sidanius &
Pratto, 1999) and the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (Neville et al., 2000), the authors found, as predicted, that compared to People of Color, Whites had more positive perceptions of campus racial climate and a greater unawareness of privilege, discrimination and blatant racial issues. Also, unawareness of racial privilege partially mediated the relationship between ethnic group membership and campus climate perceptions and higher CoBRAs scores were associated with more positive campus climate perceptions. This study replicated earlier findings of campus racial climate perception differences in Whites and People of Color (Ancis, Sedlacek, & Mohr, 2000).
CoBRAs, in White students, lead to an inaccurate assessment of campus racial climate. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 26
Neville et al (2006) examined CoBRAs in conjunction with self-reported multicultural competency and the relationship with demonstrated multicultural competence in two separate samples. The first sample consisted of 79 Midwestern mental health workers. Participants’ multicultural competencies were measured using the
Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS; Ponterotto,
Gretchen, Utsey, Rieger, & Austin, 2002) along with the Color-blind Racial Attitudes
Scale. The sample included a majority of women (86%) and ranged in age from 20 to 67.
The majority of the participants were White (78%) with a large number having applied psychology specializations (40%) and a completion of at least one multicultural focused course from their undergraduate or graduate program (76%). Neville et al (2006) found a significant negative association between CoBRAs and self-reported multicultural competency. Greater denial of the existence of racism accounted for a significant amount of variance in applying ethnocultural issues to a conceptualization of the etiology and treatment of a client. Despite a concern for social desirable responding, their hypothesis was supported. Their findings also supported earlier studies of the same nature including
Burkard and Knox’s (2004) argument that CoBRAs may be associated with less racial awareness and thus a lack of multiculturalism in case conceptualizations and a general negative relationship between racial attitudes and multicultural competence (Constantine
& Gushue, 2003). Together, these studies demonstrated the importance of reducing
CoBRAs to increase self-reported multicultural counseling competence.
The second part of Neville et al’s (2006) study focused on CoBRAs and demonstrated multicultural competence. The sample consisted of 51 Midwestern graduate students and mental health care workers. The sample included a majority of women Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 27
(59%) and ranged in age from 22 to 62 (M=31.2). The majority of the participants were either White (39%) or Black (39%) with the large majority currently enrolled in an applied graduate program (90%). Almost half completed at least one multicultural focused course from their undergraduate or graduate program (43%). Participants’ demonstrated multicultural competencies were measured using a slightly modified version of the Multicultural Case Conceptualization Ability (MCCA; Ladany, Inman,
Constantine, & Hofheinz, 1997) along with the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale
(Neville et al., 2000). The MCCA utilized a case vignette describing a Latina college student seeking counseling at a predominantly White university. Participants were asked to write a case conceptualization and then it was scored with component scores derived by Ladany et al (1997). Results indicated significant negative associations between
CoBRAs and participants’ abilities to describe a multiculturally based etiology and treatment of a minority client. In conclusion, both samples from Neville et al’s (2006) study added to previous research that demonstrated significant links between counselor perceptions of the needs of minority clients and their ability to address these needs in session. These two studies together further demonstrate the importance of reducing
CoBRAs in counselors. Being able to critically think about the existence and importance of race and racism is essential to being a multiculturally competent counselor.
Given the literature about the negative consequences CoBRAs in Whites, only a few studies have examined the malleability of these attitudes. Soble, Spanierman and
Liao (2011) explored the impact of a brief intervention on CoBRAs. The examined 138
White undergraduates (59% female) aged 18-30 (M=20.21) years old from a large
Midwestern university. The majority of participants were middle class (43%) or upper Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 28 middle class (49%) and the majority lived in suburbs (73%). Participants were randomized into the experimental and control condition and all participants completed the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (Neville et al., 2000), the Psychosocial Costs of
Racism to Whites Scale (PCRW; Spanierman and Heppner, 2004) and the Quick
Discrimination Index (QDI; Ponterotto et al., 1995) before and after the intervention.
Ninety students participated in the experimental condition in which they watched a 20 minute education video that was a clip from an investigative journalism documentary from the Primetime Live series, titled True Colors that followed a Black man and a White man with hidden cameras across a variety of contexts. The video exposed demonstrated racial inequities and the effects of White privilege. Using a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), differences in CoBRAs were found between the control and experimental group at pre and post-test. CoBRAs scores were significantly lower in the experimental condition compared with the control condition at post-intervention. This study demonstrated that CoBRAs can be reduced as a result of an intervention, however the authors suggest that future studies should look at the temporal stability of such changes and the impact of such changes on actual behaviors (Soble et al., 2004).
A recent longitudinal study examined impact of college diversity courses on changes in CoBRAs over a period of four years (Neville et al., 2014). A total of 857
White undergraduate students from a large predominantly White midwestern university participated. The majority of participants were female (49%) with ages ranging from 18-
24 years. CoBRAs were measured utilizing the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale
(Neville et al., 2000) and diversity attitudes were measured using the Miville–Guzman
Universality-Diversity Orientation Scale–Short (MGUDS-S; Fuertes, Miville, Mohr, Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 29
Sedlacek, & Gretchen, 2000) and the Preference for Thinking and Interacting Scale
(Hurtado, 2003). Diversity experiences, diversity courses and diversity related activities were also examined. Data was collected across 5 time points from the beginning of students’ first year in college to the end of their fourth year. Using multi-level modeling, authors found that students’ CoBRAs scores decreased each year as participants progressed through school. Also, average diversity courses and diversity activities were associated with unique changes in CoBRAs in that in each year in which the students that took more diversity courses; they had a greater rate of decreased CoBRAs scores. The authors noted that although statistically significant, these decreases in CoBRAs averaged about a half-point reduction, which might not be a practically significant change. This study further demonstrates the malleability of CoBRAs, but as the authors state, more needs to be known about the actual behavioral consequences of such changes including potential increases in social justice or anti-racism activities and activism (Neville et al.,
2014). Overall, more research CoBRAs needs to examined with specific attention to experimental methods in reducing colorblind attitudes, the temporal stability of such changes and the practical significance (i.e., behavioral changes) of these changes.
Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice
Given today’s sociopolitical atmosphere, one in which blatant racism is shunned upon and being accused of being racist is socially damaging, it is ever more important to understand the motivations that drive individuals to be non-prejudiced. Changes that outlawed race-based discrimination contributed to recent to social norms that frown upon overt expressions of racial prejudice. For some, the desired outcome of these changes was to have people internalize these ideals and thus have less prejudicial thoughts and Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 30 behaviors (Butz & Plant, 2009). Although it is apparent that contemporary norms have increasingly inhibited overt expressions of prejudice and discrimination, Butz and Plant
(2009) questioned whether these changes are a reflection of genuine nonprejudicial and egalitarian behavior or are simply a compliance with the social pressure to appear nonprejudiced. As a result, individual differences in motivations to appear nonprejudiced have been increasingly studied. These differences undoubtedly guide race relations due to people bringing different goals and motives to interracial interactions. Interracial interactions have the potential for prejudice and tension with White people often being fearful of seeming prejudiced. Driven by personal motivation, these concerns may interfere with the quantity and quality interracial interactions (Butz & Plant, 2009).
Plant and Devine (1998) described two sources of motivation, external and internal, that affect people’s prejudicial reactions. External motivation (EM) is described as resulting from social pressure to comply with non-prejudiced norms against racial bias.
For example, an external motivation to respond without prejudice would be doing so because others are pressuring you. In contrast, internal motivation (IM) to respond without prejudice is described as resulting from internalized and personally important standards of egalitarianism that are important to the individual’s self-concept (Johns,
Cullum, Smith & Freng, 2008). For example, an internal motivation to act without prejudice would be doing so because one believes it is important to be non-prejudiced towards others (Plant & Devine, 1998).
Plant and Devine’s (1998) original research is derived from earlier observations that some people’s racial attitudes seem strategic depending on the social context. Fazio,
Jackson, Dunton, and Williams (1995) found that some individuals who took the Modern Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 31
Racism Scale (MRM; McConahay, 1986), which when administered individually by a
Black experimenter reported less prejudicial responses compared with other assessments given via group testing. Some individuals, aware that overt prejudice is socially inappropriate, are externally motivated to respond without prejudice in the situation. It is possible to hold nonprejudiced public responses while simultaneously holding private prejudicial beliefs. Therefore, knowing a person’s motivation behind their racial responses may be important in informing research methods that aim at changing people’s racial attitudes (Plant & Devine, 1998; Plant & Devine, 2001).
Before the Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale (MRWP: Plant &
Devine, 1998), Dunton and Fazio (1997), developed the Motivation to Control Prejudiced
Reactions Scale (MCPRS). The intent was to create a scale that measured motivations to control prejudiced reactions to Blacks and a scale that would differentiate between internal and external motivations. However, factor analysis of their new scale did not provide two separate factors, but only one, which they labeled, concern with acting prejudiced. One of Dunton and Fazio’s (1997) reasons for not finding two factors was that the scale items were not distinct enough to isolate two factors (Dunton & Fazio,
1997; Plant & Devine, 1998). Consistent with this, Plant and Devine (1998) argue that some of their items are too ambiguous and not precise enough. Building on Dunton and
Fazio’s (1997) study, Plant and Devine (1998) created the Motivation to Respond
Without Prejudice Scale (MRWP: Plant & Devine, 1998), scale that measures individuals' prejudice concerns stemming from external as well as internal motivations.
Psychometric data for the scale is reported in Chapter Three. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 32
A number of studies have examined the motivation to respond without prejudice
(MRWP) and its impact on clinical judgment in counseling, race-based academic evaluations, and impact on interracial interactions. In 2004, Gushue examined 158 White graduate students from clinical and counseling psychology courses at seven northeastern universities. Ages ranged from 21 to 52 (M=26.84) with a majority being female (80%) and a majority being in counseling psychology programs (69%). Students were asked to read a brief intake summary of a fictitious client. Half of the participants were given an intake summary with a White client and half were given the same intake summary except with a Black client. Participants were then given the Internal and External Motivation to
Respond Without Prejudice Scales (IMS/EMS; Plant & Devine, 1998), the Color-blind
Racial Attitudes Scale (Neville et al., 2000), and the Initial Client Impressions Inventory
(ICII; author derived). The purpose of this study was to examine initial clinical judgment about a client’s mental health in White trainees. Clinical judgment was targeted in terms of variations in symptom ratings as a result of the race of the client, while controlling for any socially desirable responding. Furthermore, race-based perceptions of symptom severity were examined to look for a moderator effect in colorblind racial attitudes
(CoBRAs), while controlling for social desirability (i.e., motivation to respond without prejudice). Results indicated that students reported perceiving the Black client has being less symptomatic compared to the White client. The authors stated that one explanation for this finding was the shifting standards model developed by Biernat and Manis (1994) in which people from negatively stereotyped groups are judged differently than individuals from positively stereotyped groups. Thus, the Black client was judged as less symptomatic because he was judged within a set of lower standards. However, the Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 33 authors pose an alternative explanation. Because of a significant interaction effect in which a difference in judgment by client race was moderated by CoBRAs, individuals with high levels of CoBRAs conceptualized the Black client as more symptomatic whereas individuals with low levels of color-blindness conceptualized the client as less symptomatic. This study demonstrates that external motivations to respond without prejudice can contribute to making erroneous and stereotype-based conceptualizations of minority clients in counseling.
Recently, Biernat and Sesko (2013) examined how written communications about a Black or White student’s academic transcript are affected by race and the motivations that participants bring to the situation. Specifically looking at internal motivation to respond without prejudice it was assumed that internal motivations should reduce race- based evaluations. Thus, they argue that those low in internal motivation will be more likely to make race-based evaluations and according to the shifting standards model make more favorable evaluations of the Black student due to using lower standards to comparison. The found that Whites who were low in internal motivation to respond without prejudice had better evaluations of Black versus White students. In other words, participants that had less internal commitment to be nonprejudiced had more positive impressions of Black students possibly due to actively using racial stereotypes and thus holding Black students to lower standards. Alternatively those with higher internal motivations to respond without prejudice were able to avoid making race-based judgments (Biernat & Sesko, 2013). This study again demonstrates the negative consequences of external motivations to respond without prejudice. External motivations may contribute to creating erroneous and stereotype-based educational standards for Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 34 students of color. Thus, possibly impacting the overall quality of education for people of color.
Motivation to respond without prejudice has been also been studied of terms of the quality of interracial interactions. Previous research has demonstrated that there are differences between Whites that have high external motivations to appear unprejudiced versus Whites that have high internal motivations to appear unprejudiced. Specifically, externally motivated Whites have higher automatic negative affective reactions to Blacks and less neural activity associated with the inhibition of racial stereotypes (Amodio,
Devine & Harmon-Jones, 2008).
Based on the notion that many people experience negative affect during interracial interactions, Richeson and Trawalter (2008) tested whether some people were more prone towards these anxious interactions based on their motivations to respond without prejudice. Previous research has demonstrated that Blacks may automatically trigger negative affect in White people that have high external motivations to respond without prejudice (Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Devine, 2003). Richeson and Trawalter
(2008) examined external motivations to respond without prejudice toward Blacks as related to biased patterns of selective attention. White participants were presented with pairs of White and Black male faces that had either happy or neutral expressions.
Findings suggested that participants with high external motivation to respond without prejudice had a raced-based attentional bias with a response of anxious arousal in response to Black individuals. Those with high external motivation were initially attentive to Black faces, but then avoided attention to them over time. This area of study demonstrates some of the internal processes that people experience when they have Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 35 external motivations to respond without prejudice and are faced with an interracial situation. It also demonstrates that individuals that are externally motivated may have negative affect alongside specific race based patterns of attention. Overall, motivations to respond without prejudice may be reflective of racial attitudes. Gushue (2004) found a positive relationship between CoBRAs and external motivation. External motivation and
CoBRAs seem to reflect interest in appearing non-racist or non-prejudiced, therefore internal motivations may be associated with a true desire to not actually be racist.
Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites
There is a plethora of literature about the benefits of racism to Whites.
Historically, laws and policies have continued to boost White resources while preventing
Blacks from getting the same resources. In the 1930’s and 1940’s laws such as the
Wagner Act and the Social Security Act excluded farmers and other workers from coverage. From the 1940’s though present day, federal housing policies have channeled home loans away from inner-city neighborhoods and towards suburbs (Lipsitz, 2008). All of these policies have widened the economic gap between Whites and minorities by disproportionately negatively affecting Blacks. Research demonstrates these benefits across multiple domains and is especially evident when examining White privilege in the
United States. Benefits can include: 1) easier access to resources (e.g., economic, educational, judicial) 2) environmental validation of race through representation across all aspects of society (e.g., government, media, education), and 3) living without the effects of race-related daily hassles (e.g., discrimination and harassment) (McIntosh,
2008). Moreover, White privilege automatically gives Whites certain levels of inclusion, acceptance and respect. Generally, privilege increases ones’ chances of having control in Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 36 society and may give an ease of authority over others especially those in the out-group
(Johnson, 2008). Despite, some of the outlined benefits of racism to Whites, there are many costs of racism to Whites. Wise (2008) argues that even the seemingly obvious race-based benefits to Whites, hurt everyone (including Whites) in the end. D’Andrea
(2006) argues that racism compromises the social justice standards that the United States was found upon including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and further contradicts our civic duty to promote freedom and justice for all.
Negative consequences of racism to Whites were discussed as part of Helm’s
White racial identity development theory (Helms & Carter, 1990). In the theory, Helms assumes costs of racism to Whites as part of her model, however empirical research on these costs did not emerge until later with Spanierman and Heppner (2004). In 1996,
Kivel coined the term, “the costs of racism to White people,” and discussed a range of the kinds of costs that exist including the loss of one’s ethnic background in terms of language, food, music and rituals. Kivel also argued that racism distorts Whites’ senses of danger and safety as a result of being taught to fear people of color. Furthermore, White’s moral integrity is affected by being silent bystanders to the discrimination and harassment of People of Color, which can result in shame and guilt. All of these costs are important to examine in an effort to understand the negative effects of racism for Whites.
Goodman (2001) explored the costs of oppression to members of dominant groups. In her book, she argues that systemic inequities affect both the advantaged and the disadvantaged and these effects can be positive and negative on both sides. She carefully mentions that this does not mean that the oppressors are oppressed. The negative costs of White racism on Whites are not a result of oppression directed towards Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 37
Whites. Goodman (2001) explores multiple domains of the costs of oppression to dominant groups including: 1) psychological, moral and spiritual, 2) social, 3) intellectual, and 4) material and physical. Psychological costs may include a denial of emotions, guilt and shame, distorted sense of self such as a false sense of superiority, fears of oppressed groups, cognitive dissonance due to discrepancies between one’s own internal reality and other’s perceptions and moral ambivalence. Social costs deal with possible loss or diminishment of relationships and can include isolation from people that are different, barriers to authentic relationships and ostracism from one’s own group for not conforming. Intellectual loss can include a lack of development of a full range of knowledge that can include lacking multicultural knowledge and thus resulting in limited views of reality. Material costs can include a loss of safety and resources such as having restricted mobility with limited communities to live in and increased fears. Also, material costs can result from losses of valuable employees or customers (Goodman, 2001). The arguments of both Kivel (1996) and Goodman (2001) provide unique discussions on the costs of racism to Whites providing the solid background for the development of the
Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites Scale (Spanierman & Heppner, 2004).
Spanierman and Heppner (2004) examined the costs to Whites across three domains including: 1) affective, 2) cognitive, and 3) behavioral. The affective costs are emotional consequences that are experienced by Whites as a result of racism. These can include feelings of fear, guilt and anger. Cognitive costs included distortions of reality, lack of knowledge and confusion about the competing presence of democracy and inequality. Behavioral costs included limited relationships with diverse individuals and possible rejection from other Whites for challenging racism. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 38
Despite the theoretical backing for including three domains (i.e., affective, cognitive and behavioral) of psychosocial costs, the initial developmental and validation of the PCRW scale supported only one domain (i.e., affective). This domain was found to have three factors including: 1) White empathy, 2) White guilt and 3) White fear of others. White empathy reflects empathic reactions toward racism that can include anger, sadness and helplessness. White guilt reflects White individual’s guilt and shame regarding their Whiteness. White fear of others reflects White people’s general fear and distrust of People of Color (Spanierman & Heppner, 2004). The PCRW scale has been found to be psychometrically sound (see Chapter three). Since its development, the
PCRW scale has been further validated and used in a number of studies exploring the importance of the psychosocial costs of racism in relation to multicultural competence in counselors, student patterns of costs including anti-racist patterns and engagement of students in diversity activities.
For instance, Spanierman, Poteat, Wang, and Oh (2008) explored the psychosocial costs of racism to Whites in relation to factors associated with self-reported and demonstrated multicultural competence across two studies. Study 1 examined 311
White psychology geographically diverse graduate trainees with a majority being female
(78.5%) and with ages ranging from 22 to 52 years (M=28.91). Most participants were from a clinical program (54.3%) with 40.8% from a counseling program. Half of the sample had taken more than one multicultural class during training, 36% had taken one course and 13.8% had not taken any multicultural course during training. Participants were given the Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites scale (PCRW; Spanierman &
Heppner, 2004) in which the two factors of White empathy and White guilt were Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 39 examined in the model as a combination because of their similarity conceptually. The factor of White fear remained independent. The Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale-Short
Form (CoBRAS-SF; Neville, Low, Liao, Walters, & Landrum-Brown, 2006) and the
Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS; Ponterotto et al.,
2002) were also given. Results indicated that White empathy and guilt mediated the relationship between color-blind racial attitudes (CoBRAs) and multicultural knowledge.
Thus, White trainees with lower CoBRAs experienced higher empathy and guilt and lower White fear, which then predicted trainees multicultural counseling knowledge.
Also, White fear mediated the relationship between CoBRAs and multicultural knowledge and between multicultural training and knowledge. In addition, lower
CoBRAs directly predicted high multicultural counseling awareness. Results indicate that a trainee’s ability to acknowledge racial inequalities may generate affective responses that enable them to integrate multicultural issues in counseling.
Spanierman et al’s (2008) second study of the psychosocial costs of racism consisted of 59 White graduate students (85% female) that were currently counseling clients. Their ages ranged from 22 to 45 (M=28.44) with 66% specializing in counseling psychology. Also part of the study, were 49 clinical supervisors (65% female and 79.6%
White). Students were given the Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites scale (PCRW;
Spanierman & Heppner, 2004), the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale-Short Form
(CoBRAS-SF; Neville et al., 2006), the Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and
Awareness Scale (MCKAS; Ponterotto et al., 2002), Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
Scale–Form A (MCSD-A; Reynolds, 1982), and the Multicultural Case
Conceptualization Ability (MCCA) Task (Ladany et al., 1997). Supervisors were given Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 40 the Cross Cultural Counseling Inventory-Revised (CCCI-R; LaFromboise, Coleman, &
Hernandez, 1991). Results indicated that White fear predicted lower self-reported multicultural knowledge, whereas White guilt predicted higher demonstrated multicultural competency and White empathy predicted higher observed multicultural competency. As guilt increased in White trainees they were more likely to integrate racial and cultural factors in case conceptualizations of clients. White guilt was a stronger predictor of this integration then multicultural knowledge. Higher levels of multicultural training were related to less White fear which then predicted higher multicultural knowledge. Thus, addressing White’s fears of others in training could be beneficial.
Overall, it is apparent that affect may play an important role in multicultural training.
Also, because CoBRAs seem to be predictive of multicultural awareness, it may be important to consider these attitudes when educating trainees. Given these findings, multicultural training via diversity courses and interventions may also be beneficial to undergraduate students.
Another study focused on the patterns of psychosocial costs of racism to Whites among university students and the relationship of these patterns to engagement in diversity on campus (Spanierman, Todd & Anderson, 2009). Patterns of Whites’ affective reactions to racism were determined in an earlier study by Spanierman, Poteat, Beer, and
Armstrong (2006). This earlier study found the following five patterns of reactions in college students: 1) informed empathy and guilt, 2) empathic but unaccountable, 3) fearful guilt, 4) unempathic and unaware, and 5) insensitive and afraid. First, students with informed empathy and guilt (also called the antiracist types) were the least represented and were described as having the highest levels of White empathy and White Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 41 guilt and also with the lowest fear of minorities. These individuals tended towards having the most multicultural education, greatest diversity among relationships and the most cultural sensitivity. A later study (Kordesh, Spanierman & Neville, 2013) focused specifically on elucidating the characteristics of this “antiracist type”. They found that key elements of the antiracist type included a critical awareness of racism, a commitment to acting against racism, and experiencing emotional reactions to racism. Also, by comparing this antiracist type to aspects of White antiracist allies described in the literature, the authors suggested that the PCRW scale may be able to identify White racial justice allies within a campus community (Kordesh et al., 2013). Secondly, those that were labeled empathic but unaccountable were the most represented and were described as having high levels of White empathy, but low White guilt and White fear. Although these individuals had a range of diversity of relationships and an awareness of blatant racial issues, they lacked an awareness of racial privilege. The third pattern, fearful guilt, had high levels of White guilt and White fear with only moderate levels of empathy. This type laced awareness of racial privilege and had few interracial relationships. The unempathic and unaware type (also called oblivious) had low White empathy and White guilt with moderate levels of White fear. This type is characterized by CoBRAs and had low racial privilege awareness, little or no multicultural education and few interracial relationships. Notably, this type characterized the highest proportion of men (29%). The last type, insensitive and afraid, was characterized by the lowest levels of White empathy and guilt and the highest levels of White fear. This type also had the lowest levels of multicultural education, cultural sensitivity, racial awareness and exposure to other races.
These clusters of types of White students can help researchers identify critical parts of Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 42 forming education and training interventions that may increase White involvement in counteracting racism by understanding the differing affective experiences of these students.
Building on these findings, Spanierman et al (2009) examined these clusters of
White students in relation with their campus diversity engagement. At the University of
Illinois, 287 White freshman completed surveys upon their entrance to college (Time 1) and at the end of the first year (Time 2). Most of the students were female (54.7%) with an age range of 18-20 (M=18.19) years. The sample was nearly split in regards to previous experience with a multicultural course in high school (46.3% had taken at least one course and 50.2% had no such class). In addition to the Psychosocial Costs of
Racism to Whites Scale (PCRW; Spanierman & Heppner, 2004) students completed the
Unawareness of Racial Privilege subscale of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale—
Short Form (CoBRAS–SF; Neville et al., 2007), the Miville-Guzman Universality-
Diversity Scale—Short (MGUDS–S; Fuertes et al., 2000), and three surveys that inquired about diversity courses taken during their first year, participation in diversity activities and status of interracial friendships. Results indicated that diversity attitudes (i.e., UDO and unawareness of racial privilege) were significant predictors of PCRW type at entrance in to college. Higher diversity attitudes were associated with greater odds of being part of certain types. Individuals with higher UDO scores had higher odds of being in cluster types that had high White empathy while those with higher unawareness of racial privilege mostly had greater odds of being a part of cluster types that had low
White guilt. The authors also examined the predictability of diversity engagement based on cluster type at entrance to college. The only variable that held in the model was Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 43 interracial friendship, which was predictive based on PCRW type. Students that were identified initially as empathic but unaccountable or antiracist type had higher odds of having more interracial friendships through their first year than those who were identified as oblivious, fearful guilt, or insensitive and afraid types. Overall, this study increased the understanding of how psychosocial costs of racism to Whites types are connected to
White students’ diversity attitudes and activities throughout their first year of college.
With knowledge of the deleterious effects of CoBRAs and the costs of racism to both Blacks and Whites, it is important to consider how Whites can counteract racism.
Thus, anti-racism and activism orientation will be illustrated and defined, with a review of their measurement and an exploration of their operationalization.
Activism Orientation and Anti-Racism
The past couple of decades have seen an increase in literature exploring the cognitive and affective correlates of race, racism, and anti-racism in Whites (Neville et al., 2000; Pinteritis, Poteat, & Spanierman, 2010; Ponterrotto et al., 1995; Spanierman &
Heppner, 2004). The effort has been identify, define and understand the components that drive White individuals’ racial beliefs and attitudes and affective reactions to race and racism. One of the goals of this line of research has been to investigate how to reduce negative racial attitudes and increase positive racial attitudes. However, little is known about racial attitudes and behaviors. Most of these investigations on anti-racism and activism, up to the present, are not experimental and thus unable to observe a true cause and effect relationship. The little research that is available is theoretical and qualitative in nature. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 44
An important distinction is made when defining antiracist. Tatum (2003) illustrates this point clearly with a metaphor of movement on a moving walkway. Active racists are moving in the same direction of the walkway, while nonracists are on the walkway, standing still, yet moving in the same direction. Nonracists are “passive participants” in the system of racism. Anti-racists would take purposeful steps against the direction of the walkway (Feagin & Vera, 1995).
In order for racism to change, dominant White society must change. As Carter
(1997) noted,
Victims of oppression cannot stop their victimization. They can fight against it,
protect themselves from its effects, learn to achieve in spite of it, but they cannot
stop something they are not creating. Whites invented race and maintain racial
oppression in all its forms: individual, institutional, and cultural (p. 205).
Parham, White and Ajamu (1999) assert that racism is “a White people’s problem”
(p.133) and any changes to the racial system need to be derived from White people’s commitment to examining their roles in the continuing system of racism and injustice
(Spanierman & Heppner, 2004). This is no easy task as Derman-Sparks and Phillips
(1997) describe, because Whites cannot simply become nonracist by removing themselves from the ubiquitous system of institutional racism. However, Whites can work to change the system. As Brandt describes, “nonracists try to deny that the prison
[of racial inequality] exists. Antiracists work for the prison’s eventual destruction” (1991, p.65). Along with a shift away from colorblind racial ideology, there should be an active engagement with challenging and eliminating racism. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 45
A number of books and articles discuss how individuals can develop and incorporate anti-racist goals and strategies (c.f., Bonnett, 2000; Brandt, 1991; Case, 2012;
Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997; Feagin & Vera, 1995; Goodman, 2001; Kivel, 2011;
McKinney & Feagin, 2003; Pedersen, 2006; Rose, 1996). Derman-Sparks and Phillips
(1997) described four phases of anti-racism development and later Pedersen (2006) described five similar strategies of anti-racism. The first phase involves early explorations of racism. This phase is knowledge-based with a focus on defining race and providing information about the prevalence of racism. Pedersen (2006) suggest a related strategy of fostering an awareness of the history of racism as a social phenomenon.
Understanding that racism is socially constructed and intersects with other structures of inequality (e.g., classism or sexism) is crucial to the development of anti-racism.
Phase two in Derman-Sparks and Phillips’ (1997) anti-racist development involves exposing the contradictions inherent in the dynamics of racism such as the discord between egalitarian ideals and the actual treatment of racial groups. Pedersen
(2006) offers that knowing the importance of the power differential in our racialized society is essential to developing anti-racism. The third phase involves a transformation of understanding the self in society with an examination of beliefs and behaviors that lead to participation in racism. Pedersen (2006) adds that identifying and understanding unintentional racism and challenging race-based assumptions are key. Derman-Sparks and Phillips’ fourth and last phase involves the acceptance of a new anti-racist identity with a focus on individual and institutional anti-racist activism strategies. Kivel (2011) also offers thirteen basic guidelines that one can utilize in their development of anti-racist activism. The following is a highlight of the guidelines that haven’t already been Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 46 previously mentioned in other texts: 1) have the assumption that racism is everywhere, all the time, 2) take risks when encountering injustice 3) be strategic when deciding what injustice to challenge, 4) be aware of when racism is minimized, denied, or even justified,
5) understand the intersections of injustice (e.g. racism and sexism), 6) don’t be abusive,
7) support the leadership of People of Color, 8) learn about other anti-racist activists, and
9) try to establish a network that can include friends and family. Overall, these phases and guidelines provide a foundation for exploring the development and maintenance of anti-racist activism (Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997; Kivel, 2011; Pedersen, 2006).
What does anti-racism look like in terms of actual behavior? Bonnett (2000) describes the following six forms of anti-racism: 1) everyday anti-racism, 2) multicultural anti-racism, 3) psychological anti-racism, 4) radical anti-racism, 5) anti-Nazi and anti- fascist anti-racism, and 6) the representative organization. Everyday racism consists of the actions of ordinary people that are often not aligned with politics. Bonnett argues that most anti-racist organizations arose from the desire of people to eradicate the presence oppression in their lives. Bonnett (2000) cites this development in areas of popular culture such as music, literature, media and religion. The second form, multicultural anti- racism, embraces eliminating racism and the valuing of cultural plurality.
The third form of anti-racism described by Bonnett (2000) is psychological anti- racism and it entails consciousness raising via racism awareness training and the inducement of positive racial images. Here anti-racism awareness training is considered a way of quelling irrational fears while raising consciousness in Whites. The fourth form of anti-racism that Bonnett describes is radical anti-racism. This form is connected at times with revolutionary politics, but more commonly is conveyed as a social critique. Social Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 47 critique is an analysis and a questioning that aims to deconstruct and challenge racism in society. The fifth form Bonnett describes is the narrower anti-Nazi and anti-fascist anti- racism. Anti-Nazi and anti-fascist anti-racism are responses to specific historical movements that embraced the biological racism and racial supremacy. The representative organization is the final form of anti-racism, which is rooted in the idea that the oppressed need economic and institutional power in order to no longer be marginalized. It is apparent that anti-racist behaviors are elicited across multiple spheres.
Case (2012), explored the development of awareness of White privilege of women who were members of a group called White Women Against Racism (WWAR).
This qualitative study focused on the developing awareness of privilege and its relationship to their anti-racist identities and behaviors.
Both groups were part of a women’s center on a midwestern university campus in the U.S. with one being a large metropolitan university and the other being a smaller university in a small college town. Twenty-one WWAR members with ages ranging from 19 to 51 (M=30) participated through observations of meetings or private interviews or both (Case, 2012).
Results indicated that racism was part of the daily lives of these women on multiple levels. Some described the indirect effect of being affected by the racism their friends of color experience. Participants also discussed effects of racism in terms of having little exposure to People of Color, being in segregated work environments and having an increased awareness of their own privilege. They also described the influence of racism in terms of their internal experiences such as dealing with their own anger about racism and making sure to maintain awareness of their racial biases. They felt a Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 48 sense of responsibility that was inseparable from their awareness of White privilege
(Case, 2012). Most of their anti-racist behaviors did not appear in the form of collective group activism such as attending marches or demonstrations, but rather appeared closer to home in more personal and individual efforts. Anti-racist activism included challenging racist comments, teaching students and leading workshops about racism, intervening when witnessing discrimination in public; diversity infused hiring practices and generally advocating for diversity in their everyday life. A unique approach taken by one woman included purchasing multiple copies of a book about raising anti-racist children and distributing them her family members. These women viewed their anti-racist activism as a lifestyle (Case, 2012).
Much of the recent literature urges authors to investigate whether changes in racial attitudes, beliefs and emotions lead to actual changes in behavior. For example, in the previously mentioned study by Neville et al (2014), the authors argue that although some studies have found that it may be possible to decrease color-blind racial attitudes
(CoBRAs), little is known about the practical significance is in terms of behavior. They state that future research should focus on the practical consequences of these changes, how they affect observable behavior, and the nature of these changed behaviors.
Although there is quite a bit of theoretical and qualitative studies regarding the development of anti-racism and behavioral responses as a result of identifying as anti- racist, there is a dearth of quantitative research on anti-racist behavior.
Because of its focus on behavior, the Activism Orientation Scale (AOS) was used to attempt to capture the practical significance of changes in CoBRAs (Corning &
Meyers, 2002). Activism orientation can be defined and an individual’s propensity Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 49 towards participating in low-risk and high risk, passive and active, sociopolitical and potentially problem-solving activities. In order to encompass a broad range of activism behavior, Corning and Meyers (2002) integrate both conventional behaviors and riskier behaviors. Conventional behaviors include behaviors such as attending or organizing political and informational meetings and events, gathering information about political issues, and presenting facts to contest another person’s social or political statement. High- risk behaviors include behaviors such as participating in political activities in which you know you will be arrested, engaging in illegal activity and confronting police. The AOS is specifically a future-oriented scale and thus it will be used to examine changes in an individual’s perceptions of their future actions before and after intervention and at follow-up.
Beer, Spanierman, Greene and Todd (2012) utilized the AOS in their mixed- methods examination of counseling psychology trainees’ perceptions of their training and personal commitments to social justice. They examined 260 graduate trainees from 65
APA accredited counseling psychology graduate programs across the United States. Ages ranged from 22 years to 56 years (M=28.4) and the years in graduate program represented were first year (33.8%), second year (26.5%), third year (12.7%), fourth year (13.8%) and fifth year and beyond (13.2%). The majority of participants identified as White/European
American (71.2%), female (83.5%), and heterosexual (87.3%). Also, just over half identified as Christian (52.3%) and Democrat (60.4%). In addition to the AOS, the authors used a six-item version of the Confronting Discrimination (CD) subscale of the
Social Issues Advocacy Scale (SIAS; Nilsson, Marszalek, Linnemeyer, Bahner, &
Hansen, 2009), to measure responsibility to confront professionals and practices that Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 50 support discriminatory acts, The Climate and Comfort subscale of the Multicultural
Environmental Inventory—Revised (MEI–R; Pope-Davis, Liu, Nevitt, & Toporek, 2000) to assess students’ perceptions of their training environment in relation to social justice.
Participants also responded to two questions about their perceptions of the importance of social justice in counseling psychology education, as well as the extent of the focus on social justice in their program, Lastly, the Spirituality Assessment Scale (SAS;
Howden, 1993) was used as a broad measure of morality and inner strength. The qualitative portion of the study included an interview, which according to the authors was used gain a deeper understanding of the personal and professional experiences of the counseling psychology trainees that demonstrated higher commitments to social justice.
Interviews included prompts asking participants to describe their personal and professional meanings of social justice and to describe their social justice activities.
Results of the quantitative portion of the study indicated high scores (indicating high levels of social justice) on all measures including the AOS, Confronting Discrimination
(CD) subscale of the Social Issues Advocacy Scale and The Climate and Comfort subscale of the Multicultural Environmental Inventory—Revised. Also, overall, participants rated their graduate training program’s commitments to social justice lower than their personal ideal. Results from the qualitative data obtained via interviews of a subsample uncovered four major themes in the area of social justice commitment across three areas. The first theme includes descriptions of the nature of social justice work and includes the following: it is necessarily political, confronting social injustice with one’s voice (both spoken and written) is important to social justice advocacy and the nature of social justice advocacy is challenging. The second theme emerged concerning motivation Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 51 for activism in social justice and include the following: energy and connection to social justice advocacy, contact with injustice or activist role models, empowerment of oppressed groups, and being a witness to change. The third theme addressed the role of training in social justice activism and included the following: the importance of curriculum in counseling psychology programs, the importance of a supportive training environment including access to role models and the issue of professional barriers to social justice such as other graduate training demands. The final theme addressed the personal and professional integration of a commitment to social justice. Lastly, Beer et al
(2012) examined the relationship between personal and training variables to predictors of graduate student professional commitment to social justice. Results showed that spirituality predicted confronting discrimination after controlling for gender and activist orientation, perceptions of training environment accounted for significant additional variance in confronting discrimination above and beyond spirituality.
Summary
This review of the literature provides evidence that color-blind racial attitudes, motivations to respond without prejudice, psychosocial costs of racism and activism orientation are important constructs in understanding contemporary racism. Colorblind racial ideology provides the theoretical foundation to understand these relationships. We know the CoBRAs have negative social consequences for Whites in terms of interracial interactions. Whites who take color-blind perspectives in interracial interactions appear more biased to Blacks and produce more explicit and implicit racial attitude bias
(Apfelbaum et al., 2008; Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004). Also, those with higher CoBRAs are more likely to make race-based judgments in clinical and educational settings Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 52
(Biernat & Sesko, 2013; Gushue, 2004). In an attempt to appear nonracist, Whites actually accomplish the reverse. What we don’t know is if CoBRAs are amendable to change, if that change remains over time and if the change is related to behavioral orientation.
We know that higher external motivations to respond without prejudice tend to be strategic for outward appearances and positively related to higher CoBRAs and higher automatic negative affective reactions to Blacks (Amodio et al., 2008; Fazio et al., 1995;
Norton, Sommers, Apfelbaum, Pura & Ariely, 2006). Also, those with low internal motivations to respond without prejudice are more likely to make race-based judgments about minorities (Biernat & Sesko, 2013). What we don’t know is if White individuals’ internal motivations are related to activism orientation or predictive of potential change in
CoBRAs.
We know that Whites experience affective costs as a result of racism such as exaggerated levels of fear and heightened levels of guilt (Kivel, 2011; Spanierman &
Heppner, 2004) and social costs such as diminished relationships and isolation from diversity (Goodman, 2001). What we don’t know is if these costs are predictive of the malleability of CoBRAs or related to likely activism behavior. The next step in the literature is to examine methods of changing CoBRAs, the nature and temporal stability of these changes and the measurement of the practical significance of such changes by examining activism orientation.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to explore color-blind racial attitudes and identify an intervention that can change White college students’ racial attitudes over time. White Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 53 college students’ propensity toward activism behaviors were examined before and after the intervention to see if changes in CoBRAs lead to likely behavioral changes. Utilizing an experimental method, this study significantly and uniquely contributed to our understanding of the antecedents of change in individuals’ racial attitudes and behaviors.
Also, activism orientation, for the first time, was examined in conjunction with measures of color-blind racial attitudes, motivations to respond without prejudice and psychosocial costs of racism. Thus, this dissertation focused on the following specific questions and hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Color-blind racial attitudes, the fear subscale of psychosocial costs
of racism and external motivations will all be positively correlated with one
another.
Hypothesis 2: Internal motivation to respond without prejudice, the psychosocial
costs of empathy and guilt and activism orientation will all be positively
correlated with one another.
Hypothesis 3: Immediately following the brief video intervention, color-blind
racial attitudes at Time 2 will be significantly lower than in Time 1 and there will
be significant differences in color-blind racial attitudes between the intervention
group and the control group.
Hypothesis 4: A lack of significant changes in color-blind racial attitudes will
demonstrate temporal stability from Time 2 to Time 3.
Hypothesis 5: Changes in color-blind racial attitudes will be predictive of changes
in activism orientation from Time 1 to Time 3. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 54
Hypothesis 6: There will be a differential effect of motivations to respond without
prejudice and psychosocial costs of racism on changes in color-blind racial
attitudes.
Hypothesis 7: There will be a differential effect of motivations to respond without
prejudice and psychosocial costs of racism on changes in activism orientation.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 55
CHAPTER III
METHODS
This chapter includes the participants, procedures, measures and statistical analyses proposed for the current study. First, the sample is discussed followed by the procedures for collecting the data from the participants. Next, the measures for the study are presented and include the content, reliability and validity of these measures. Finally, the hypotheses and statistical analyses that were used in the study are outlined.
Participants
Data was collected from a sample size of approximately 86 students age 18 and over. Sample size was estimated for a 2X2 mixed factorial design using G*Power version
3.1.9.2, a program that provides power and sample size estimates for numerous statistical analyses (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang & Buchner, 2007).
. Data was collected from all students who volunteered to participate, but only data from White students were analyzed as part of the study. Students were sampled from the University of Akron, Baldwin Wallace University, Ashland University and the
University of Denver and were offered class credit for their participation. Participants were randomized into one of two conditions including: experimental Condition 1 (race) and control Condition 2 (note-taking skills). This occurred by using an online randomizer in which groups were randomized in the experimental and control conditions.
As shown in Table 2, participants’ ages ranged from 18 years old to 37 years old and the average age of participants was 19.8 years old (SD= 2.3). Most participants in the study (n =83, 96.4%) identified as White. Two people (2.4%) were excluded due to not identifying White and one for not identifying as undergraduate (1.2%). Undergraduate Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 56 class rank was represented by the following: freshman (n =33; 39.8%), sophomores (n
=21; 25.3%), juniors (n =20; 24.1%) and seniors (n =8; 9.6%). Regarding gender and sexual orientation, a majority of participants self-identified as female (n =63; 75.9%) and exclusively heterosexual (n =66; 79.5%). A minority of the sample identified other than heterosexual including the following: mostly heterosexual (n =8; 9.6%), bisexual (n =3;
3.6%), gay (n =3; 3.6%) and other (n =3; 3.6%). Two participants (2.4%) wrote in identifications with one self-identifying as pansexual and one (1.2%) self-identifying as questioning.
The majority of participants identified as single (n =48; 57.8%) or in a committed relationship (n =33; 39.8%) and a small minority identifying with cohabitating (n =1;
1.2%). Additionally, most participants identified as employed (n =58; 69.9%) and some
(n =25; 30.1%) identified as unemployed. Of those employed the large majority endorsed part-time work (n =41; 93%). The majority of participants (n =78; 94%) fell into the less than $20,000 income bracket.
Procedures
There were three sessions of data collection, Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3. Time 1 included all measures at pre-intervention. Time 2 included all measures immediately after the intervention. Time 3 was a follow-up session that included all measures completed 2 weeks after the intervention.
Students signed up for in person time slots at which time they were brought into a classroom to complete Time 1 and Time 2 of the study. Time 3 required only online participation. Students were assigned identification numbers (the last four digits of their phone number). Any identifying information obtained from the students (i.e., for Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 57 purposes of issuing extra credit and contacting them via follow-up reminder emails for was kept separately from their data files. Notification was conducted in person by visiting qualifying classes (i.e., classes in which students are able to receive credit for participation with permission from instructors). The study was also included in the psychology department’s website for research participation at each university.
Time 1 and Time 2
Following a brief description of the study students were given an informed consent to read and sign. The informed consent indicated the time needed for participation and a brief statement about what they could expect from the study and its purpose.
After consent, questionnaire packets were be distributed to the participants. Time
1 contained the following sets of measures and these measures were presented to the participants in the same manner and order (See Table 1 in Appendix I). First, participants completed several questions concerning their demographic information. Second, participants completed several pre-intervention questionnaires including (order randomized), the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (Neville et al., 2000), the Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale (Plant & Devine, 1998), the Psychosocial Costs of
Racism to Whites Scale (Spanierman & Heppner, 2004) and the Activism Orientation
Scale (Corning & Meyers, 2002).
After participants completed the pre-intervention measures, students were shown a brief video (6-12 minutes) dependent on what condition to which they were randomly sorted.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 58
Experimental Condition
Participants watched an 16-minute video about racial discrimination and White privilege. This video is a documentary series from the Primetime Live news program originally aired on television entitled True Colors (Lukasiewicz, Harvey, ABC News, &
CorVision Media, 2005). This video was chosen because it clearly depicts racial discrimination and White privilege by comparing how two 28-year-old males (one Black, one White) matched in education, income, and marital status are treated across various situations. Following the video, there was a 5-10 minute discussion that was prompted by three questions. Prompt questions for the discussion. Immediately following the discussion, participants completed the same five measures randomly ordered.
Control Condition
Control condition participants viewed a brief video (6 minutes) about note-taking skills. The video is sixth from a series of video podcasts developed by the University of
Ottawa that teaches study skills. The focus of this podcast is the Cornell Note-Taking
System (Knoerr, Vandergrift, & Weinberg, 2010). The note-taking skills video did not contain any references to race, colorblindness or privilege. Immediately following the note-taking skills video manipulation, there was a brief (5-10 minute) follow-up discussion with the same three prompt questions as in the experimental condition (see
Appendix C). Immediately following the discussion, participants took the same five measures in a different order.
At the conclusion of Time 2, participants were instructed to record their identification number for Time 3 participation. Participants received partial course credit for their participation and full credit at the conclusion of study. They were reminded of Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 59 their needed participation in Time 3 (2 weeks later) online and that they would be contacted via email to remind them.
Time 3
Upon preparing for completion of the second part of the study, students were directed to an online survey on Qualtrics. After each participant decided to continue participation they first read the informed consent. The informed consent indicated the time needed for participation and a brief statement about what they can expect from the study and its purpose. Participants clicked the “continue” button indicating their informed consent for Time 3.
For Time 3 all participants took the same five measures as from Times 1 and 2. At the conclusion of the study, participants were shown a debriefing paragraph discussing the aim of the study and how the information they provided may aid in developing our understanding of anti-racist interventions. Professors were contacted once participants completed the study to grant extra credit.
Measures
Demographic questionnaire
The demographic survey is an author-derived 8-item questionnaire (see Appendix
C) that asked participants to report personal information including: age, self-designated gender, self-designated race, sexual orientation, relationship status, employment status, personal income and class rank (e.g., Freshman).
Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale
The Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS; Neville et al., 2000) assessed cognitive dimensions of colorblind racial attitudes. Specifically, the CoBRAS assessed Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 60 racial attitudes in White students before and after an intervention targeting White privilege and anti-racism activism. The full-scale score and the scores from the three subscales will be examined. The CoBRAS consists of 20 items to assess color-blind racial attitudes on a 6-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree and 6= strongly agree).
Higher scores show greater levels of colorblindness or unawareness if race. Several items are reverse coded. The CoBRAS examines blindness across three areas: Racial
Privileges, Institutional Discrimination, and Blatant Racial Issues. The Racial Privilege subscale measures unawareness of White privilege. An example item is, “Everyone who works hard, no matter what race they are, has an equal chance to become rich.” The
Institutional Discrimination subscale measures limited awareness of the implications of institutional discrimination and exclusion. An example item is, “Social policies, such as affirmative action, discriminate unfairly against White people.” The Blatant Racial Issues subscale measures unawareness of general and pervasive racial discrimination. An example item is, “Racial problems in the U.S. are rare, isolated situations.”
During Neville et al’s (2000) initial scale construction, a sample of 593 college students and community members (304 women and 289 men) from the Midwest and
West Coast participated in the study. Ages ranged from 14 -88 years (M=22.78) and 67% of the participants identified as White, 19% Black, 5% Latino/Chicano, 2% Asian
American, 1% Native American and 6% unspecified. Split-half reliability was estimated at .72 with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .70-.86. Concurrent validity was demonstrated by its relationship with Global Belief in a Just World (GBJW; Lipkus,
1991) and the Multidimensional Belief in a Just World— Sociopolitical subscales
(MBJWS; Furnham & Proctor, 1988) with correlations ranging from .39 to .61. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 61
Discriminant validity was also demonstrated early. Correlations among the CoBRAS factors and a measure of social desirability, the short version of the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS; Reynolds, 1982) were examined and found to not have a strong association. Criterion validity has also demonstrated by findings that racial groups (i.e., White, Black, and Latino) had different mean scores on three CoBRAS factors (Neville et al., 2000). More recently, reliability has been demonstrated with
Cronbach’s alpha of .81 in a sample of 375 diverse students (Awad, Cokley, & Ravitch,
2005). The CoBRAS is a psychometrically sound instrument that has been well established within the literature.
Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice
The Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice scale (MRWP: Plant & Devine,
1998) was used measure individuals' prejudice concerns stemming from external as well as internal motivations. External motivation is described as resulting from social pressure to comply with non-prejudiced norms against racial bias. For example, an external motivation (EM) item is: “I try to act non-prejudiced toward Black people because of pressure from others.” In contrast, internal motivation to appear non-prejudiced is described as resulting from internalized and personally important non-prejudiced standards of egalitarianism that are important to the individual’s self-concept (Johns et al., 2008). For example, an internal motivation (IM) item is: “I am personally motivated by my beliefs to be non-prejudiced toward Black people.” Both the external and the internal subscales contain 5 items each and use a Likert-type response format (1= Not at all and 9= Very much). Higher scores reflect higher motivation (Plant & Devine, 1998). Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 62
The original reported reliability and validity for the MWRP during scale development was derived from three initial samples. Sample 1 consisted of 135 introductory psychology students (78% female; 94% White), sample 2 included 245 introductory psychology students (74% female; 84% White) and sample 3 consisted of
1,363 introductory psychology students (60% female; 85%White). All students received extra course credit for their participation, but Black students were excluded from the analyses (Plant & Devine, 1998). Alpha levels ranged from .76 - .85 across the three samples. In addition, both scales demonstrated reasonable test-retest reliabilities after a 9- week period (IMS r=.77; EMS r=.60). Also, the correlations between the IMS and EMS were small and negative suggesting that the two subscales are independent (Plant &
Devine, 1998).
Hausmann and Ryan (2004) utilized the MRWP with 477 introductory to psychology students in exchange for course credit. They examined the effects of internal and external motivation to control prejudice on implicit prejudice and further demonstrated the reliability of the measure (IMS alpha =.81; EMS alpha= .84).
More recently, Kuntsman, Plant, Zielaskowski and LaCosse (2013) utilized the measure and surveyed 51 introductory psychology students (100% White; 85% female; mean age=18.88) to test whether out-group acceptance facilitated the development of internal motivation to respond without prejudice. Consistent with previous research the
MRWP was found to be reliable (IMS alpha =.77; EMS alpha= .81).
During the scale’s development, Plant and Devine (1998) established convergent and discriminant validity during phase two of their study. Of the 300 introductory to psychology students (78% female; 88% White) that participated and were given course Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 63
credit, 247 participants participated fully and their data was analyzed. Convergent validity was established with positive correlations with the Attitudes Towards Blacks (ATB;
Brigham, 1993) scale and the Pro-Black Scale (Katz & Hass, 1988). Discriminant validity has also been well established for this measure. During the scale’s development,
Plant and Devine (1998) found that the IM subscale was negatively correlated with the
Modern Racism Scale (MRS; McConahay, Hardee, & Batts, 1981) and the Anti-Black
Scale (Katz & Hass, 1988). Furthermore, in Plant and Devine (1998) the researchers found both the IMS and the EMS were unrelated to the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale (MCSDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) further establishing discriminant validity. The Marlowe-Crowne scale measures the propensity to present a nonrealistic positive impression of oneself. With high scores indicating higher social desirability and high scores indicating more motivation, then responses on the MRWP should not be related to responses on the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Plant, Devine &
Brazy, 2003).
Finally, in phase three of their study Plant and Devine (1998) established the scales’ predictive validity. Participants were 80 introductory to psychology students (75% female; 97% White) who received course credit for their participation. The IMS, EMS, and ATB were completed as part of a large group testing session early in the semester.
Participants were considered eligible for the present study if they responded fell within the top and bottom 30% of the IMS and EMS distributions. The final sample consisted of
20 participants in each of the high internal-low external, high internal-high external, low internal- high external, and low internal-low external groups. Half the participants were randomly assigned to complete the measure in private and were assured that their Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 64 responses would be anonymous. The other half were randomly assigned to give their responses orally, and it was made clear that the experimenter would record their response. They then rated the extent to which each of 35 traits, some of which were known to be part of the prevailing cultural stereotype of Blacks as well as others, were characteristic of Blacks on a scale ranging from - 3 (uncharacteristic) to +3
(characteristic). Plant and Devine (1998) demonstrated that participants’ level of stereotype endorsement differed as a function of both the source of their motivation to respond without prejudice and whether they reported privately (i.e. anonymously) or publicly (i.e. directly to the experimenter) thus indicating the predictive validity of the
MRWP (Plant et al., 2003).
Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites
The Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites Scale (PCRW; Spanierman &
Heppner, 2004) assessed White individuals’ experiences of the affective costs of racism across the three domains of empathy, guilt and fear. Specifically, psychosocial costs of racism were examined prior to the intervention as a predictor of change in colorblind racial attitudes in White students. The subscales were utilized as independent predictors.
The 16-item self-report measure uses a Likert-type response format (1= strongly disagree and 6= strongly agree). Higher scores reflect higher experiences of psychosocial costs.
The measure includes three subscales: White Empathy (six items; “When I hear about acts of racial violence, I become angry or depressed”); White Guilt (five items; “Being
White makes me feel personally responsible for racism”); and White Fear (five items; “I often find myself fearful of people of other races”) (Soble et al., 2011). Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 65
During initial development, the PCRW demonstrated good reliability in a sample of 361 White Midwestern undergraduate college students. Internal consistency estimates for the three subscales of the PCRW were as follows: empathy (.78), guilt (.73) and fear
(.63). Reliability was also demonstrated on an additional sample of 366 undergraduates from a large and middle-sized midwestern university with the following range of estimates: empathy (.79-.85), guilt (.70-.81) and fear (.69-.78). Finally, initial two-week test-retest reliability was .84 for the empathy subscale, .69 for the guilt subscale and .95 for the fear subscale (Spanierman & Heppner, 2004). More recently, two studies demonstrated reliability on a sample of community members and college students with the following range of alpha coefficients: empathy .75-.80, guilt .59-.77 and fear .65-.71
(Poteat & Spanierman, 2008; Todd, Spanierman & Aber, 2010).
Convergent validity has been demonstrated early from significant correlations (in the hypothesized directions) with the Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS;
Neville et al., 2000), the Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE; Wang, Davidson,
Yakushko, Savoy, Tan, & Bleier, 2003) and the Oklahoma Racial Attitudes Scale
(ORAS; LaFleur, Leach, & Rowe, 2002). Also, previous findings with college students demonstrated that the PCRW is not associated with socially desirable responding via the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale–Form C (M-C Form C; Reynolds, 1982) thus indicating discriminant validity (Spanierman & Heppner, 2004). In a later study, Poteat and Spanierman (2008) demonstrated the validity of the PCRW scale among 284 geographically diverse (across eight states) community members (51% female and mean age 40.1 years). Convergent validity was demonstrated from significant correlations (in the hypothesized directions) with the Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS; Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 66
Neville et al., 2000) and the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale-Short
(MGUDS-S; Fuertes et al., 2000). Also, similar to the development study on college students, the PCRW was not associated with socially desirable responding via the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale–Form C (M-C Form C; Reynolds, 1982) in a community sample (Poteat & Spanierman, 2008).
Activism Orientation Scale
The Activism Orientation Scale (AOS: Corning & Meyers, 2002) measured self- reported likelihood behaviors associated with willingness towards activism engagement.
This 35-item measure uses a 4-point Likert scale (0= extremely unlikely and 3= extremely likely). Total scores can be derived, as well as 2 subscale scores with higher scores indicating greater levels of willingness to engage in activism. The AOS examines activism engagement behaviors across two areas: Conventional Engagement and High- risk Engagement. The conventional engagement subscale consists of 28 items. An example item asks how likely is that you will engage in the following activity, “Display a poster or bumper sticker with a political message.” The high-risk engagement subscale consists of 7 items. An example item asks how likely is that you will engage in the following activity, “Engage in a political activity in which you knew you would be arrested.” (Corning & Meyers, 2002)
During initial development, the AOS demonstrated reliability in a combined sample of 224 mostly White undergraduate and graduate college students from two Mid- western universities. Overall internal consistency estimates across the four subsamples of the AOS were as follows: .93, .96, .96 and .96. Reliability was also demonstrated across the two subscales in all of the subsamples. Internal consistency estimates for the Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 67 conventional subscale across the four subsamples of the AOS were as follows: .91, .95,
.95 and .95. Internal consistency estimates for the high-risk subscale across the four subsamples of the AOS were as follows: .92, .87, .89 and .88 (Corning & Meyers, 2002).
Reliability was additionally examined in a combined sample of 101 activist community members. Overall internal consistency estimates across the two subsamples of the AOS were as follows: .94, and .87. Internal consistency estimates for the conventional subscale across the two subsamples of the AOS were as follows: .88 and .87. Internal consistency estimates for the high-risk subscale across the two subsamples of the AOS were as follows: .93 and .91 (Corning & Meyers, 2002). In a separate second study, reliability of the AOS was demonstrated by Beer et al (2012) in a study examining 260 graduate counseling psychology trainees’ perceptions of social justice commitment in training with an overall internal consistency estimate of .96.
Convergent validity was demonstrated in initial development by Corning and
Meyer (2002) in their college sample from significant correlations (in the hypothesized directions) with the Spheres of Control scale (Paulhus, 1983), which includes a sociopolitical control subscale and the Collective Behavior for Women Scale (CBW;
Foster & Matheson, 1995), which examines, in part, political activism on behalf of women. Convergent validity was demonstrated in their community sample from significant correlations with the Environmental Activism Scale (SGuin, Pelletier, &
Hunsley, 1998). Discriminant validity was demonstrated in the college sample with the
Spheres of Control scale with no significant correlations found between the AOS and the personal efficacy and the interpersonal control subscales.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 68
Hypotheses of current study
The hypotheses of the current study and the statistical analyses specific to each prediction are as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Color-blind racial attitudes, White fear and external motivations
will all be positively correlated with one another. This hypothesis was
investigated by examining the correlations between the scores on the full scale
CoBRAS, the fear subscale of the PCRW and the external subscale of the MRWP
scale.
Hypothesis 2: Internal motivation to respond without prejudice White empathy,
White guilt and activism orientation will all be positively correlated with one
another. This hypothesis was investigated by examining the correlations between
scores on the internal subscale of the MRWP scale, the empathy and guilt
subscales of the PCRW scale and the AOS.
Hypothesis 3: Immediately following the brief video intervention, color-blind
racial attitudes at Time 2 will be significantly lower than in Time 1 and those in
the experimental condition will have lower color-blind racial attitudes than the
control condition at Time 2. This hypothesis was investigated by examining a 2 X
2 (Group X Time) mixed design MANCOVA across Time 1 and Time 2 to
compare CoBRAS total and subscale scores between the experimental group and
control group and CoBRAS scores from Time 1 to Time 2. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 69
Hypothesis 4: No significant changes will occur from Time 2 to Time 3 in color-
blind racial attitudes for those in the experimental condition, which will
demonstrate temporal stability. This hypothesis was investigated by examining a
within-subjects MANCOVA with CoBRAS full and subscale scores from Time 2
to Time 3.
Hypothesis 5: Changes in color-blind racial attitudes at Time 2 will be predictive
of changes in activism orientation from Time 1 to Time 3. This hypothesis was
investigated by examining a hierarchical regression performed with baseline
CoBRAS scores in Step 1, CoBRAS change scores at Time 2 in Step 2 and AOS
change scores at Time 3 as step 3.
Hypotheses 6 and 7: There will be a differential effect of motivations to respond
without prejudice and psychosocial costs of racism on changes in color-blind
racial attitudes. These hypotheses were investigated by examining a hierarchical
regression used to test the relationship of PCRW, MRWP, and AOS with changes
in CoBRAS at Time 2.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 70
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter reviews the data analysis procedure used to investigate the hypotheses of the current study. First, the data was cleaned, missing data was identified and addressed, and variables of interest were examined for univariate and multivariate normality (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). After the data was cleaned and prepared, the main analyses were conducted. Correlations were conducted to examine the relationships between the main variables in accordance with hypotheses 1 and 2. Hypothesis 3 was investigated utilizing a mixed design MANCOVA and hypothesis 4 was investigated via a within-subjects MANOVA. A multiple regression was used to examine hypotheses 5 through 7.
Data Screening and Missing Data
The data were screened to locate, describe, and deal with inappropriate cases and missing data values using best practices (Schlomer, Bauman, and Card, 2010). Next, the data were assessed for outliers and normality of the data.
Missing Data Values. Data was collected from 86 participants for Time 1 and 2 of the study in order to satisfy the proposed sample size of 86 participants, according to preliminary power analysis. However, three cases were removed that did not meet a part of the inclusion criteria for the study, one for not having undergraduate status, and two for not identifying as White, thus leaving a remaining sample size of 83. No cases were removed due to failure to complete the study. There was a considerable decrease in sample size (n=45) from Time 1 to Time 3 due to participant drop out after the initial part of the study. The remaining data was screened according to the recommendations of Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 71
Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). After the aforementioned initial screening of the data, missingness was examined and dealt with in accordance with recommendations by
Schlomer, Bauman, and Card (2010). Schlomer et al. (2010) recommends a three step process to assess and deal with missing data which includes: reporting the amount of missing data, examining patterns of missingness, and reporting the method used to deal with the missing data. Accordingly, the overall amount of data missing in the initial dataset (Time 1 and 2) was 6.68% and 11.11% for Time 3. Schlomer et al. (2010) also recommend that when total scale scores are being analyzed that data imputation should occur before total scores are calculated, while still reporting the level of missingness at the item level. Accordingly, the amount of missing data were assessed for each scale, with 2.4% of data missing for the CoBRAs at pretest, 3.6% of data missing for the
CoBRAs at posttest and 11% at follow-up. The MRWP had 0% of data missing at pretest and 1.2% of data missing at posttest. The PCRW had 0% of data missing at pretest and
0% of data missing at posttest. The AOS had 1.2% of data missing at pretest and 1.2% of data missing at posttest.
In response to missingness of individual items that were used to compose total scale scores, mean scores for the scale were calculated instead, when participants had competed at least 80% of the items for each scale. Downey and King (1998) found that the impact of mean imputation, when at least 80% of a scale was completed, did not bias scale reliability. Therefore, the computation of mean scores for individuals with at least
80% of a scale completed is the mathematical equivalent of mean imputation. This method allows for the use of the greatest amount of data possible when analyses utilized a scale score. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 72
As recommended by Schlomer, Bauman, and Card (2010), the patterns of missing data were examined at both the scale and item level in order to determine if data were missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), or not missing at random (NMAR). When there is no pattern to missing data and the missing values are not related to any variables within the study, then the data is considered to be MCAR.
However, when data are MAR, the missing data are related to another measured variables, but it is not related to the missing data itself. When data are NMAR there is a pattern to the missing data such that the reason the individual is missing a score on that item is related to the missing item itself. Schlomer et al. (2010) note that determining
NMAR is not empirically possible and, rather, it is a conceptual issue to consider.
Additionally, it is difficult to determine if data are MCAR or MAR, however Schlomer et al. (2010) recommend using a dummy variable to identify missingness and then to investigate possible patterns, therefore, dummy variables were created at both the item and scale level to identify missingness. No non-random or interpretable patterns of missingness were found at the item level. At the scale level, patterns of missingness were also examined, however, a majority of cases (98%) contained a scale score for each of the variables of interest. Among the 2% of cases that were missing at least one scale score, no non-random or interpretable patterns of missingness were found. The most common patterns of missing data at the scale level were missing a scale score for the Time 1 AOS, one only missing a scale score for the Time 2 AOS, one case missing a Time 2 CoBRAs scale score, two missing a Time 2 CoBRAs scale score, three cases missing one Time 3
CoBRAs scale score and one case missing a Time 1 and Time 2 CoBRAs scale score. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 73
Screening for Data Outliers. Data were screened for univariate and multivariate outliers according the strategy outlined by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). Both univariate
(i.e., extreme value on one variable) and multivariate (i.e., unusual combination of scores on multiple variables) outliers were examined as they can distort findings (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001). First, scale scores were examined to ensure that values were within expected scale ranges. Second, univariate outliers among continuous variables were examined with the use of z-scores to identify large standardized scores. Tabachnick and
Fidell (2001) recommend that standardized scores above 3.29 (p<.001) may be potential outliers and should be examined. Four data points were found to have standardized scores in excess of 3.29 for various scale scores, with a range of 3.33 to 4.26, however these data points were still within range for the various scale scores and thusly were not deleted from the data set.
Regarding multivariate outliers, Mahalanobis distances were examined to detect influential data points. A Mahalanobis distance is “the distance of a case from the centroid of the remaining cases where the centroid is the point created at the intersection of the means of all the variables” (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 68). Mahalanobis distances can be evaluated using a χ2 distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom and using a conservative estimate of p<.001 for the χ2 value as a cutoff for determining multivariate outliers. In the current study, all cases across all independent variables were examined and were found to have p-values above .001 and thus none had multivariate outliers.
Examining Data Normality. The assumption that underlies most statistical tests is that the data are distributed normally and therefore it is important to examine the skewness and kurtosis of the data (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The skewness and Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 74 kurtosis of each scale at pretest, posttest and follow-up are provided in Tables 2, 3 and 4.
The shapes of the distributions for the scales were examined to determine if they depart significantly from the distribution of a normal curve, as recommended by Tabachnick and
Fidell (2001). In addition to visually assessing the distributions, the skewness and kurtosis values were examined with their standard errors. Following the recommendation that both skewness and kurtosis values should not exceed 1.00 in either direction, seven subscale scores were corrected using log10 transformations (with reflection for negative skewness) in order to increase the normality of the data (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
Following these transformations all scales were consistent with a normal distribution.
Descriptive Statistics
Tables 5, 6 and 7 provide descriptive statistics for the primary variables of interest at pretest, posttest and follow-up. The descriptive statistics include means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas, items per scale and scale ranges of the variables of interest.
The overall mean and standard deviation for the CoBRAs at Time 1 was, M= 56.8, SD=
16.0 (n= 83), Time 2 M= 52.8, SD= 17.6 (n= 83) and M= 56.8, SD= 19.9 (n= 45) at Time
3. The overall mean and standard deviation for the MWRP at Time 1 was, M= 65.4, SD=
12.1 (n= 83) and M= 66.7, SD= 13.4 (n= 83) at Time 2. The overall mean and standard deviation for the PCRW total was, M= 54.4, SD= 8.6, (n= 83) at Time 1 and at Time 2
M= 55.3, SD= 8.4 (n= 83). The overall Time 1 mean and standard deviation for the AOS was M= 37.4, SD= 22.0 (n= 83) and at Time 2 M= 37.8, SD= 24.0 (n= 83).
Coefficient alphas for the scales at pretest were good to excellent with a range of
.61 to .96. The reliability estimates will be discussed for each measure in comparison to previous reliability estimates from research. At Time 1-3, the Color-blind Racial Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 75
Attitudes Scale (CoBRAs) had in internal consistency reliability coefficients of .90, .92 and .93, which are all similar to the range of coefficient alphas of .70-.86 found by
Neville et al (2000) among a sample of college students and community members. The
Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice scale (MRWP) had an internal consistency reliability coefficient of .74 at Time 1 and .78 and at Time 2. It is similar to the coefficient range of .76 -.85 found by Plant and Devine (1998) among a similar sample of college students. The Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites scale (PCRW) had an internal consistency reliability coefficient of .61 at Time 1 and .62 and at Time 2. This was consistent with the reliability found by Spanierman and Heppner (2004) among a large sample of undergraduates ranging from .63-.78. The Activism Orientation Scale
(AOS) had an internal consistency reliability coefficient of .96 at Time 1 and .97 and at
Time 2, which is similar to the coefficient range of .93-.96 found by Corning and Meyers
(2002) among a similar sample of college students.
Hypotheses 1 and 2. The first two hypotheses attempted to understand bivariate relationships between the main variables of interest. This first hypothesis posited that color-blind racial attitudes, White fear and external motivations would all be positively correlated with one another. The second hypothesis posited that internal motivation to respond without prejudice, White guilt and White empathy and activism orientation will all be positively correlated with one another.
These hypotheses were assessed by examining the bivariate correlations of the variables of interest and appropriate subscales. Hypothesis 1 was supported for the most part. As shown in Table 8, and 9, at Time 1 and Time 2 color-blind racial attitudes was positively correlated White fear (r= .31, p< .01, n=83, r= .32, p< .01, n=83) and the Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 76 external motivation to respond without prejudice subscale (r= .33, p< .01, n=83; r= .29, p< .01, n=83, respectively). White fear was not significantly correlated with the external motivation to respond without prejudice subscale at Time 1 (r= .12, p= .27, n=83) but was significantly positively correlated at Time 2 (r= .28, p< .05, n=83).
Hypothesis 2 was supported in part. At Time 1 and Time 2 the internal motivation to respond without prejudice subscale was positively correlated with White empathy (r=
.55, p< .01, n=83; r= .57, p< .01, n=83, respectively). At Time 1 and Time 2, White guilt was significantly negatively correlated to internal motivation to respond without prejudice, which was the opposite of the hypothesized positive direction (r= -.35, p< .01, n=83; r= -.33, p< .01, n=83, respectively). Also, at Time 1 and Time 2, the internal motivation to respond without prejudice subscale was not significantly correlated with activism orientation (r= -.11, p=.33, n=83; r= -.14, p=.21, n=83, respectively).
At Time 1 and Time 2, White empathy was negatively related to activism orientation, the opposite of the hypothesized positive correlation (r = -.37, p< .01, n=83; r= -.37, p< .01, n=83, respectively). At Time 1 White guilt was positively related to activism orientation (r = .32, p< .01, n=83), however at Time 2 there was not a significant correlation (r= .19, p= .08, n=83).
Hypothesis 3. The third hypothesis attempted to understand the before and after effect of an experimental video and discussion based intervention on the main variables.
This third hypothesis posited that immediately following the intervention, color-blind racial attitudes at Time 2 will be significantly lower than before the intervention at Time
1.
This hypothesis was assessed by examining within group differences between Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 77
Time 1 and Time 2 and between group differences (experimental condition vs. control condition) using a two-factor mixed design MANCOVA. The MANCOVA analysis examines the influence of group (intervention vs. control) on the dependent variables of
CoBRAS, MWRP, PCRW and AOS. Hypothesis 3 was supported in part. Results indicated that omnibus MANCOVA was significant for within-subjects changes from
2 Time 1 to Time 2, Wilks’ Λ=, 0.85, F (4,77)=3.4, p<.05, p =.15. A timeXgroup interaction was significant with a more robust effect size indicating that group
(intervention vs. control) had a more significant impact on changes across the dependent
2 variables over time alone, Wilks’ Λ=, 0.80, F (4,77)=4.7, p<.01, p =.20. Due to the significant MANCOVA, univariate tests were run to examine an ANCOVA on each main variable for time and the timeXgroup interaction. The following findings were yielded for each main variable across Time 1 and Time 2 dependent on group: CoBRAS, F
2 2 (1,80)=0.86, p<.01, p = .13, MRWP, F (1,80)=5.9, p<.05, p =.07, PCRW, F (1,80)=3.4
2 2 p=.07, p =.04 and AOS, F (1,80)=0.44, p=.51, p =.04 (See Table 11). Significant decreases occurred as a result of the intervention in CoBRAs scores and significant increases occurred in MRWP scores. ANCOVAS were examined for all subtests of each main variable to determine if specific aspects of each measure had more or less significant changes than the full measure before and after the intervention. Results indicated that the racial privilege subscale of the CoBRAs had significant decreases in the
2 intervention group between Time 1 and Time 2, CoBRAs, F (1,80)=14.2, p<.001, p = .15.
Also, White guilt had significant increases between Time 1 and Time 2, F (1,80)=4.8,
2 p<.05, p = .06. The blatant racial and the institutional discrimination subscales of the
CoBRAs, the internal and external subscales of the MRWP, White empathy and White Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 78 fear and the conventional and high risk subscales of the AOS had no significant changes from Time 1 to Time 2.
Hypothesis 4. The fourth hypothesis attempted to understand if after an intervention, do changes in students’ color-blind racial attitudes have temporal stability?
In other words, when color-blind racial attitudes are reduced via an intervention, do they remain reduced at a later time (Time 3)? The fourth hypothesis posited that a lack of significant changes from Time 2 to Time 3 in color-blind racial attitudes for those in the experimental condition will demonstrate temporal stability.
Only 45 participants completed all three parts of the study and thus only 45 were included in the analysis for hypothesis 4. This hypothesis was assessed by examining within group differences between Time 2 and Time 3 using a MANOVA. The MANOVA analysis examined the influence of time (Time 2 vs. Time 3) on the dependent variable of total CoBRAs and its three subscales. Hypothesis 4 was supported. As expected, no significant differences were found between Time 2 CoBRAs and follow-up, Wilks’ Λ=,
0.82, F (4,41)=32.2, p=.09.
Hypothesis 5. The fifth hypothesis attempted to understand if changes in color- blind racial attitudes are associated with changes in activism orientation. The fifth hypothesis posited that changes in color-blind racial attitudes from Time 1 to Time 2 will be predictive of changes in activism orientation from Time 1 to Time 2. Since no significant changes were found in AOS between Time 1 and Time 2, no further analysis was needed and hypothesis 5 was not supported
Hypotheses 6 and 7. The final two hypotheses attempted to understand if motivations to respond without prejudice and psychosocial costs of racism Time 1 are Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 79 predictive of change in color-blind racial attitudes? Hypothesis 6 and 7 posited that motivations to respond without prejudice and psychosocial costs of racism will be predictive of changes in color-blind racial attitudes. Hypotheses 6 and 7 were assessed by performing a multiple regression used to test the relationship of PCRW and its three subscales, MRWP and its two subscales with CoBRAs at Time 2. A change score was created by subtracting CoBRAs scores at Time 2 from CoBRAs sores at Time 1. In the multiple regression, predicting the change in CoBRAs scores at Time 2, total MWRP,
MRWP subscales, total PCRW and PCRW subscales from Time 1 were input in as the independent variables. None of the main variables were found to be significant predictors of CoBRAs change scores. Hypotheses 6 and 7 were not supported.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 80
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This chapter provides an overview of the aims of the current study as well as a review and summarization of the results and how these connect with previous literature.
Discussion of the main analyses are reviewed and connected with existing literature.
Limitations of the current study, recommendations for future research and implications for the field of counseling psychology are discussed and this chapter concludes with a summary of the entire study. The purpose of this study was to examine color-blind racial attitudes, motivation to respond without prejudice, psychosocial costs of racism and activism orientation.. The main objective was to explore an intervention to reduce White college students’ racial attitudes over time. Relationships between measures of color- blind racial attitudes, motivation to respond without prejudice, psychosocial costs of racism and activism orientation were explored. White college students’ activism orientation was examined before and after the intervention to see if changes in CoBRAs are connected to self-reported activism behaviors. Lastly, motivation to respond without prejudice and psychosocial costs of racism were examined to identify if these variables are predictive of changes in color-blind racial attitudes. Utilizing an experimental method, this study contributed to our understanding of change in individuals’ race-related attitudes. The various findings of the current study provided some insight into how a race-based intervention can reduce racism within White college students.
Summary of results
The first two hypotheses explored the relationships between color-blind racial attitudes, motivation to respond without prejudice, psychosocial costs of racism and Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 81 activism orientation. This first hypothesis posited that color-blind racial attitudes, White fear and external motivations would all be positively correlated with one another. In support of the first hypothesis, a significant positive relationship was found between color-blind racial attitudes and White fear before and after the intervention and control.
Individuals that had higher levels of color-blind racial attitudes had higher levels of
White fear. It is likely that individuals that fear People of Color are more likely to hold racist attitudes (Spanierman et al., 2009). Also, a significant positive relationship was found between color-blind racial attitudes and external motivations to respond without prejudice. Those that held higher color-blind racial attitudes also had a higher external motivation to respond without prejudice. This relationship is intuitive as external motivation is described as resulting from social pressure to comply with non-prejudiced norms against racial bias and individuals that hold color-blind racial attitudes are motivated to deny race and racism to make themselves appear less racist. These findings are in accordance with previous research that found positive relationships between color- blind racial attitudes and fear as a psychosocial cost of racism (Spanierman & Heppner,
2004; Gushue, 2004; Soble et al., 2011). Lastly, a significant positive relationship was found between external motivations to respond without prejudice and White fear at posttest, but not at pretest. Those that held higher external motivation to respond without prejudice also had higher White fear. Again, individuals that are driven by social pressures to appear nonracist rather than having an internal drive to be nonracist are more likely to be racist and thus hold fears about People of Color (Gushue, 2004). This last finding, the relationship between White fear and external motivation to respond without prejudice was examined for the first time in this study. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 82
The second hypothesis posited that internal motivation to respond without prejudice, White empathy, White guilt and activism orientation will all be positively related with one another. In partial support of the second hypothesis, before and after the intervention/control, internal motivation to respond without prejudice was positively related to White empathy. Individuals that were more motivated to respond without prejudice because they held an internal attitude against prejudice had higher levels of empathy for individuals that experience racism. Because an individual with an internal drive to act without prejudice would be doing so because they believe it is important to be non-prejudiced towards others, increased White empathy towards People of Color especially when they experience racism is not surprising (Plant & Devine, 1998).
However, the second part of hypothesis 2, White guilt would be positively related to an internal motivation to respond without prejudice, was not supported. In fact, White guilt was found to be significantly negatively related to an internal motivation to respond without prejudice indicating that in this sample, individuals that had higher levels of
White guilt had lower levels of internal motivation to respond without prejudice or were less likely to hold internal attitudes against prejudice. It could be that individuals with higher levels of internal motivation to respond without prejudice have lowers levels of
White guilt because by holding egalitarian values they believe that they are nonracist and thus contributing to positive change (Plant & Devine, 1998). No other studies have published findings on the relationship between White guilt and White empathy and internal motivation to respond without prejudice.
Finally, the third part of the second hypothesis, that internal motivation to respond without prejudice would be positively related to activism orientation. The third part of Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 83 hypothesis 2 was not supported and thus internal motivation to respond without prejudice was not related to activism orientation. Internal motivation and activism orientation are distinct constructs in that motivation is an attitude and activism orientation is self- reported likelihood of behavior. It could be that individuals that hold internal motivations to respond without prejudice are not participating in activism and those that do have a distinct quality that was not measured. These measures have not been previously studied before but other research has found positive relationships between other types of internal personal motivation and activism orientation (Beer, Spanierman, Greene & Todd, 2012).
The fourth part of hypothesis 2 that posited that guilt would be positively related to activism as a psychosocial cost of racism. At Time 1, this hypothesis was supported with individuals having higher levels of guilt about White privilege having more self-reported activism behaviors. However, at Time 2 (after the intervention and control), this hypothesis was not supported, with no significant relationships found. It could be that since in this study, guilt increased after the intervention and activism orientation did not change, it made the relationship non-significant. White guilt has been found to be positively related to positive attitudes about minorities and to increased support in Whites for affirmative action (Harvey & Oswald, 2000; Spanierman & Heppner, 2004). The current study’s results support previous research that has demonstrated increases in White guilt after recognition that Whites experience privilege that isn’t earned (Soble, 2011).
Given the difference between emotional change and attitude change (i.e., guilt and attitudes towards affirmative action) and behavioral change (i.e., activism), it could be that the intervention was more successful in changing internal experiences rather than Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 84 external experience because it requires less motivation and risk. Also, emotional and attitudes change may need to come first before behavioral change.
The fifth part of hypothesis 2 that posited that White empathy would be positively related to activism orientation. At Time 1 and Time 2 this hypothesis was not supported with results indicating a significant relationship in the opposite direction. Thus, individuals with higher White empathy had lower levels of self-reported activism behaviors. Although these relationships have never been explored in previous literature, it was expected that White empathy might motivate individual’s likelihood of responding to racism via activism. It could be that White empathy isn’t a motivating factor in the likelihood of behavioral action. The last part of hypothesis 2 that posited that White guilt would be positively related to White empathy. As expected, White guilt and White empathy were positively related to one another. Individuals with more White guilt had more White empathy towards individuals that experience racism. Previous research has demonstrated this relationship multiple times (Spanierman & Heppner, 2004;
Spanierman, Todd & Anderson, 2009).
The third hypothesis posited that, immediately following the intervention, color- blind racial attitudes at Time 2 will be significantly lower than before the intervention at
Time 1. After examining within group differences between Time 1 and Time 2 and between group differences (experimental condition vs. control condition) on color-blind racial attitudes, motivations to respond without prejudice, psychosocial costs of racism and activism orientation, hypothesis 3 was supported in part. Results indicated that from
Time 1 to Time 2, significant decreases occurred (as a result of the intervention) in colorblind racial attitudes and significant increases in motivations to respond without Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 85 prejudice. This main hypothesis of the study was a replication of previous findings. Soble et al (2011) found a significant reduction in color-blind racial attitudes and significant increases in White empathy and White guilt as a result of a similar intervention. The current study replicated the findings in part with significant reductions in color-blind racial attitudes and significant increases in White guilt. Past research has demonstrated that increasing awareness of racism and privilege may increase affect such as guilt
(Pinterits, Poteat, & Spanierman, 2009). This is a significant finding and replication of an important study that supports that notion that brief racial video interventions with
White students are effective in reducing color-blind racial attitudes. This finding is in line with previous diversity research that has demonstrated that videos are an effective means of intervention. For example, Neville et al (1996), found that students in a multicultural therapy course reported videos as one of the interactions that most led to change in them.
Also, in a qualitative study of diversity course elements, participants reported video and discussion as having an impact with higher frequency relative to other interactions such as lectures or experiential activities (Sammon & Speight, 2008). Harris (2003) found qualitative results that indicated positive change and growth in an interracial communications class that viewed race-based videos as a primary means of intervention.
Lastly, Pieterse (2009) found that education videos were an effective means for teaching about racism.
It could be that exposure to people of a different race increases knowledge and awareness. Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis described that having contact with members of other groups may lead to decreases in prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination. Others have expanded this hypothesis with suggestions that vicarious Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 86 contact (even via video) can lead to the same effect with the observation of in-group members having positive cross-group contact (Mazziotta, Mummendey & Wright, 2011).
Exposure to out-group members, including the discrimination of the out-group members and intergroup discussion in the documentary may have contributed to vicarious contact and thus reduction in color-blind racial attitudes. Differing from the previous study, no significant increases were found with White empathy. Soble et al (2011) found significant increases in White empathy as a result of a similar video intervention.
The current study found a fairly robust effect size for color-blind racial attitudes between Time 1 and Time 2 that was just under the effect size of the previous study, thus there were strong decreases between the Time 1 and Time 2 groups in color-blind racial attitudes. For White guilt, the current study had a larger effect size than the previous study. After examining the subscales of the main variables of interest, it was found that the racial privilege subscale of the CoBRAs had significant decreases between Time 1 and Time 2. For the current study, it appears that the strongest decreases occurred in denial of racial privilege. This finding is not surprising since the main theme of the video intervention was a side-by-side depiction of a White person experiencing privilege and a
Black person experiencing discrimination across the same situations. Soble et al (2011) did not report changes in any CoBRAs subscales. No significant within group changes as a result of the intervention were found in psychosocial costs of racism total and activism behaviors. It appears that the video intervention most affected the scale that measured what the video intervention depicted and as a result increased White guilt. No other
CoBRAs subscales, PCRW subscales or subscales from the other main variables of interest had significant changes (Soble et al., 2011). Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 87
The fourth hypothesis posited that decreases in White college students’ color- blind racial attitudes will have temporal stability as measured at Time 3, two weeks after the intervention. Results indicated that significant decreases occurred in White students that participated in the intervention group, no significant changes occurred within two weeks thus supporting the temporal stability of the change via the intervention. It appears that decreases in color-racial attitudes due to a brief intervention remain steady after a period of time, thus providing more support for the effectiveness of such interventions.
No other studies have examined the temporal stability of changes in color-blind racial attitudes after a singular intervention. Neville et al (2014) examined changes in color- blind racial attitudes through 4 years of study in college and found that CoBRAs continued to decrease with each year as diversity experiences increased.
In an attempt to understand if changes in color-blind racial attitudes are associated with changes in activism orientation, the fifth hypothesis posited that changes in color- blind racial attitudes from Time 1 to Time 2 would be predictive of changes in activism orientation from Time 1 to Time 2. Because activism orientation is a measure of self- reported likelihood of behavior, it may be that attitude changes do not lead to behavioral changes without another link such as empathy, which was not significantly affected in this study. Since no significant changes were found in activism orientation between Time
1 and Time 2, hypothesis 5 was not supported. No other studies have examined the association between changes in color-bind racial attitudes and activism orientation.
In an attempt to understand if motivations to respond without prejudice and psychosocial costs of racism at Time 1 are predictive of changes in color-blind racial attitudes, the final two hypotheses (6 and 7) explored the relationship of PCRW and its Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 88 three subscales, MRWP and its two subscales with CoBRAs changes at Time 2. None of the main variables were found to be significant predictors of CoBRAs change scores thus hypotheses 6 and 7 were not supported. No other studies have examined the predictability of changes in color-bind racial attitudes based on these variables.
Limitations and Strengths of the Study
Limitations included issues of threats to internal and external validity. Possible threats to internal validity included: selection bias, history, maturation and attrition. In terms of selection bias, the study was advertised to participants as a study about racial attitudes to only psychology and sociology classes. As a result, the sample may have been self-selected and thus participants may have been more interested in the topic and more malleable to changes in color-blind racial attitudes. It could be that White students that are interested in race may be less racist form the onset or more likely to be open to change. Thus, the results do not account for participants that chose not to participate for unknown reasons (Leong & Austin, 2006). Also, participants may have had differing backgrounds and thus differing levels of awareness and privilege before the study. This could have influenced which participants were more likely to change as a result of the intervention. Lastly, significant attrition occurred from Time 1 to Time 3 of the study.
Nearly half (38) of the total participants (83) did not complete follow-up and thus attrition at Time 3 was 46%. Participation for Time 1 and Time 2 was in person and in the same time period. Time 3 participation was online and 2 weeks later. Participants were likely less motivated to complete the study in their own time and without the presence of the researcher. Also, participants may have forgotten to complete Time 3.
Maturation may have occurred between Time 2 and 3. Participants may have had race- Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 89 based experiences not related to the study that affected the temporal stability of the changes they experiences in color-blind racial attitudes. As a result, less data was available for analysis of the variables. Although the results are likely less robust with the attrition, enough power was retained to complete analysis with Time 3 data and no group differences were found that indicated a pattern to the attrition (Leong & Austin, 2006).
Possible other limitations include measurement issues. Randomization of the measures was used in an effort to guard against participants copying responses from Time 1 to
Time 2, however participants may have been aware at times of the repetition of the measures. A few participants asked the researcher if the researcher knew that the measures were repetitive. Thus, it is possible that some of the results could have been influenced by this knowledge by the participants copying previous answers or being less careful when answering. Observation of the participants provided no indication of copying previous answers. Also, the Activism Orientation Scale was a general measure of self-reported likelihood to participate in activism. A more focused anti-racist or activism measure about race may have been more relatable to participants especially in connection to the race based intervention (Leong & Austin, 2006).
In terms of external validity, there are possible threats to population and ecological validity in this study. The sample consisted entirely of undergraduate and graduate students from psychology and sociology classes at large predominantly White institutions. Thus, the findings may not be generalizable to the general population. Also, there was a lack of diversity in age, SES, gender and sexual orientation in the current study, which may limit the generalizability to the general population. Threats to the ecological validity of the study may be present with the results not being generalizable Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 90 across settings such as replicating the results in other settings such as campus classes.
Furthermore, an interaction effect of testing may have occurred in which participants responded in a certain way to the intervention as a result of the measures they took before the intervention. The measures used in this study were fairly face valid and participants would likely to be able to easily identify the central themes of the study (Leong & Austin,
2006).
A clear strength of this study was the experimental design. Moving away from correlational research can increase our understanding of the true cause and effect nature of an intervention to reduce colorblind racial attitudes. Secondly, replicating Soble et al’s
(2011) study with the addition of a discussion to the video intervention may have strengthened the study. Soble et al (2011) recommended that the time period immediately following the video intervention might be an additional opportunity to increase change.
By adding a discussion, this study gave opportunity to participants to process their reactions and perhaps provided an opportunity to create greater overall changes. It could be that the discussion, a form of active learning, helped to further integrate the information rather than the passive learning of viewing a video (Prince, 2004). Although the effect size of the current study (.13) was not larger than Soble’s (.15) for overall changes on color-blind racial attitudes, the effect size for changes in White guilt was higher in the current study (.06) compared to the previous study (.04). Thirdly, this was the first study to look at the temporal stability of changes to color-blind racial attitudes as a result of an intervention. Soble et al (2011) recommended examining the changes in color-blind racial attitudes at more than two time points to determine if changes remain over time or occur for only the brief period following the intervention. This study Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 91 demonstrated that changes in color-blind racial attitudes remained stable at least two weeks after the intervention. Additionally, this study added to the literature by examining the important constructs of color-blind racial attitudes, psychosocial costs of racism, motivation to respond without prejudice and activism orientation together for the first time.
Recommendations
The findings of the current study lend to recommendations for future research.
The following recommendations are suggested:
1. Although short-term temporal stability was demonstrated in the current study, a
longitudinal examination of the temporal stability of changes to color-blind racial
attitudes would give more information about the long-term effects of a race based
intervention.
2. With the measurement of temporal stability it may be beneficial to measure
potential threats to internal validity such as assessing potential maturation (i.e.,
diversity experiences outside the study).
3. Understanding the impact of group intervention and discussion among only
White participants versus an interracial group may illuminate its impact on
changes in colorblind racism. Specifically, White guilt and White empathy may
be impacted differently when participants have to interact in a non-diverse group
rather than an interracial group.
4. Selection bias may be better avoided by participant recruitment that does not
disclose the race-based nature of a study. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 92
5. Recruitment from students across all majors would aid in the generalizabilty of
the study.
6. Increasing the diversity of the sample would enable future studies to be more
generalizable to the general population.
7. Understanding the background of participants in terms of diversity may be
helpful in determining what individuals are more likely to change as a result of an
intervention.
Implications
This study offers further evidence that a brief intervention can reduce color-blind racial attitudes in college students. Continued use of such interventions could be beneficial in the educational institutions as an option for create continued change in color-blind racial attitudes of Whites. Results such as these found in this study can inform instructors on how to better create diversity and multicultural courses. Implementing possible vicarious contact (via videos) and active learning (i.e., discussions) appear to be essential elements in creating reduction in color-blind racial attitudes (Allport, 1954;
Harris, 2003; Mazziotta et al., 2011; Pieterse, 2009; Sammon & Speight, 2008).
Interventions such as the one in the current study could be adapted for all age levels and introduced early in the educational system, far before college and in college in order to counteract familial and societal prejudice. Furthermore, previous research has demonstrated strong relationships between lower color-blind racial attitudes and higher multicultural competence (Neville et al., 2006). Thus, implementing video interventions in multicultural coursework for counseling psychology trainees may serve as a way to decrease color-blind racial attitudes and increase multicultural competence. Also, Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 93 previous research has demonstrated that increasing White guilt in counseling trainees predicts higher multicultural competence (Spanierman et al., 2008).
Given counseling psychologists’ training and background in multiculturalism and their vital role in working towards social justice (Vera & Speight, 2003), it is important that counseling psychologists work to dismantle systems of oppression, most relevant to this current study, racism. This study contributed to the field of counseling psychology by using an intervention to decrease color-blind racism in an effort to increase multicultural and social justice attitudes. The aim of this study was to target color-blind racial attitudes
(CoBRAs) in Whites via an intervention and examine the potential activism changes that result (Neville et al., 2000). Developing a color-blind racism intervention and demonstrating its efficacy through measurement of future behaviors served to promote the values of inclusion and diversity while counteracting the existence and effects of racism. This dissertation not only explored issues of racism and privilege, but also added to our knowledge about how these issues can continue to be addressed in the future in order to promote social change. Given the prevalence of White racism against Blacks and
People of Color in general, it would be beneficial everyone, not just counseling psychologists, to examine their spheres of influence to look for opportunities to reduce racism. Counseling psychologists have many spheres in which they can practice social justice in attempts to reduce the frequency to which racism occurs. In a remedial and preventative realm, counseling psychologists are fit to conduct workshops on college campuses, which could educate students about racism and introduce racism interventions to increase multicultural knowledge, awareness, and skills. Furthermore, counseling psychology faculty could lead anti-racism advocacy on college campuses and in the Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 94 greater regional and national community by being involved with legislative and policy efforts to increase racial equity and to support anti-racism training and interventions.
Summary
The goal of this study was to explore a experimental video and discussion intervention to reduce color-blind racial attitudes. Individuals with these attitudes deny the importance of race and therefore the existence of racism, which has negative consequences for Whites and People of Color. Additionally this study aimed to examine the temporal stability of the predicted reduction in color-blind racial attitudes, as well as if these changes could be predicted by pre-intervention motivations to reduce prejudice,
White guilt, White fear and White empathy. Furthermore, this study aimed to examine the associations with a reduction in color-blind racial attitudes with self-reported likelihood of activism behaviors. Hypothesized reductions in color-blind racial attitudes were identified as well as significant associations between many of the main variables.
The results confirmed that color-blind racial attitudes are malleable and have temporal stability.
Additionally, strengths were highlighted, as well as challenges that undermined the aims of the study were identified and these issues are noted as limitations for the current study. Based on the strengths and limitations of the study, recommendations were offered that addressed the challenges of the current study while also highlighting areas for future research that would advance understanding interventions to reduce racism in
Whites.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 95
REFERENCES
Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of
Colorblindness. New York. The New Press.
Allport, G.W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley.
Amodio, D.M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Devine, P.G. (2003). Individual differences in the
activation and control of affective race bias as assessed by startle eye blink
response and self-report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 738–
753. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.60
Amodio, D.M., Devine, P.G., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2008). Individual differences in the
regulation of intergroup bias: The role of conflict monitoring and neural signals
for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 60–74. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.60
Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus
cultural climate by race. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 180 –185.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02576.x
Apfelbaum, E.P., Sommers, S.R., & Norton, M.I. (2008). Seeing race and seeming
racist? Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social interaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 918-932. doi:10.1037/a0011990
Atwater, S.A.C. (2008). Waking up to difference: Teachers, color-blindness, and the
effects on students of color. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, 246-253.
Awad, G. H., Cokley, K., & Ravitch, J. (2005). Attitudes toward affirmative action: A
comparison of colorblind versus modern racist attitudes. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 35, 1384–1399. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02175.x Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 96
Banks, K.H. (2014). “Perceived” discrimination as an example of color-blind racial
ideology’s influence on psychology. American Psychologist, 69, 311-313.
doi:10.1037/a0035734
Beer, A.M., Spanierman, L. B., Greene, J.C. , & Todd, N.R. (2012). Counseling
psychology trainees' perceptions of training and commitments to social justice.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 120–133. doi: 10.1037/a0026325
Berman, G., & Paradies, Y. (2010). Racism, disadvantage and multiculturalism:
Towards effective anti-racist praxis. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33, 214-232.
doi:10.1080/01419870802302272
Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5–20. doi:10.1037/022-
3514.66.1.5
Biernat, M., & Sesko, A.K. (2013). Communicating about others: Motivations and
consequences of race-based impressions. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 49, 138-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.08.013
Bieschke, K. J. (2009). Counseling psychology model training values statement
addressing diversity. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 641-643.
doi:10.1177/0011000009331930
Bonilla-Silva, E. (1997). Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation. American
Sociological Review, 62, 465-480. DOI?
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001). White supremacy and racism in the post-civil rights era.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 97
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2014). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence
of racial inequality in the United States. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.
Bonilla-Silva, E., Lewis, A., & Embrick, D.G. (2004). I did not get that job because of a
Black man: The story lines and testimonies of color-blind racism. Sociological
Forum, 19, 555-581. doi:10.1007/s11206-004-0696-3
Bonnett, A. (2000). Anti-Racism. London: Routledge
Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of
considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Brandt, J. (1991). Dismantling racism: The continuing challenge to White America.
Minneapolis: Augsberg Fortress.
Brigham, J.C. (1993). College students' racial attitudes. Journal of Applied and Social
Psychology, 23, 1933-1967. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01074.x
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873
(1954).
Burkard, A. W., & Knox, S. (2004). Effect of therapist color-blindness on empathy and
attributions in cross-cultural counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,
387–397. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.387
Butz, D.A. & Plant, E.A. (2009). Prejudice Control and Interracial Relations: The Role of
Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice. Journal of Personality, 77, 1311-1342.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00583.x
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 98
Carter, S. (1997). Is White a race? Expressions of White racial identity. In M. Fine, L.
Weis, L. Powell, & L. M. Wong (Eds.), Off White: Readings on race, power and
society (pp. 198–209). New York: Routledge.
Case, K.A. (2012). Discovering the privilege of whiteness: White women’s reflections on
anti-racist identity and ally behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 78–96.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01737.x
Constantine, M. G., & Gushue, G. V. (2003). School counselors’ ethnic tolerance
attitudes and racism attitudes as predictors of their multicultural case
conceptualization of an immigrant student. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 81, 185–190. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00240.x
Corning, A. F., & Myers, D. J. (2002). Individual orientation toward engagement in
social action. Political Psychology, 23(4), 703-729.
Correll, J., Park, B., & Smith, J.A. (2008). Colorblind and multicultural prejudice
reduction strategies in high-conflict situations. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 11, 471-491. doi:10.1177/1368430208095401
Cox, R. J. A. (2012). The impact of mass incarceration on the lives of African American
women. The Review of Black Political Economy, 39, 203-212.
doi:10.1007/s12114-011-9114-2
D’Andrea, M. (2006). In liberty and justice for all: A comprehensive approach to
ameliorating the complex problems of White racism and White superiority in the
United States. In M. G. Constantine & D.W. Sue (Eds.), Addressing racism:
Facilitating cultural competence in mental health and educational settings (p.
252). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 99
Darity Jr., W. & Hamilton, D. (2012). Bad policies for economic justice. The Review of
Black Political Economy, 39, 79-85. doi:10.1007/s12114-011-9129-8
Derman-Sparks, L., & Phillips, C. B. (1997). Teaching/learning anti-racism: A
developmental approach. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Donovan, R.A., Galban, D.J. Grace, R.K., Bennett, J.K., & Felicie, S.Z. (2012).
Impact of racial macro- and microaggressions in Black women’s lives: A
preliminary analysis. Journal of Black Psychology, 39, 185-196.
doi:10.1177/0095798412443259
Downey, R.G., & King, C.V. (1998). Missing data in Likert ratings: A comparison of
replacement methods. The Journal of General Psychology, 125, 175-191.
doi:10.1080/00221309809595542
Dreher, D.E., Feldman, D.B., Numan, R. (2014). Controlling parents survey: Measuring
the influence of parental control on personal development in college students.
College Student Affairs Journal 32, 397-111.
Dunton, B. C., & Fazio, R. H. (1997). An individual difference measure of motivation to
control prejudiced reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 316-
326.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G. & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: a flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 175-91. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 100
Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in
automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide
pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013-1027.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1013
Feagin, J., & Bennefield, Z. (2014). Systemic racism and U.S. healthcare. Social
Science and Medicine, 103, 7-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.006
Feagin, J., & Vera, H. (1995). White racism: The basics. London: Routledge.
Forman, T. A. (2004). Color-blind racism and racial indifference: The role of racial
apathy in facilitating enduring inequalities. In M. Krysan and A. E. Lewis (eds.),
The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of
whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Fuertes, J.N., Miville, M.L., Mohr, J.J., Sedlacek,W. E., & Gretchen, D. (2000). Factor
structure and short form of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 157-169. DOI?
Fumham, A., & Procter, E. (1988). The multi-dimensional just world belief scale.
[Mimeograph] London: London University.
Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (2005). Understanding and Addressing Contemporary
Racism: From Aversive Racism to the Common Ingroup Identity Model. Journal
of Social Issues, 61, 615-639. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00424.x
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 101
Goodman, D. J. (2001). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from
privileged groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grus, C.L. (2009). Implications of the Counseling Psychology Model Training Values
Statement Addressing Diversity for Education and Training in Professional
Psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 752-759.
doi:10.1177/0011000009334432
Gushue, G.V. (2004). Race, color-blind racial attitudes, and judgments about mental
health: A shifting standards perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,
398-407. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.398
Harrell, J.P., Hall, S., & Taliaferro. J. (2003). Physiological responses to racism and
discrimination: An assessment of the evidence. American Journal of Public
Health 93, 243-248. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.2.243
Harris, T.M. (2003). Impacting student perceptions of and attitudes toward race in the
interracial communication course. Communication Education, 52, 311-317.
doi:10.1080/0363452032000156271
Harvey, R.D., & Oswald, D.L. (2000). Collective guilt and shame as motivation for
White support of Black programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30,
1790–1811. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02468.x
Hausmann, L.R.M., & Ryan, C.S. (2004). Effects of external and internal motivation to
control prejudice on implicit prejudice: The mediating role of efforts to control
prejudiced responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26, 215-225.
doi:10.1080/01973533.2004.9646406
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 102
Helms, J. E., & Carter, R. T. (1990). Development of the White Racial Identity Attitude
Inventory. In J. E. Helms (Ed.), Black and White racial identity: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. 67–80). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Henry, P.J. (2010). Modern racism. In J. Levine & M. Hogg (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of
Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications. hooks, b. (1995). Killing rage: Ending racism. New York: Holt.
Hurtado, S. (2003). Preparing college students for a diverse democracy. Final report to
the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, Field Initiated Studies Program. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the
Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education.
James, D.R. (2000). Commentary: Colorblind versus color-conscious justice. Social
Science History, 24, 429-434. DOI?
Johns, M., Cullum, J., Smith, T., & Freng, S. (2008). Internal motivation to respond
without prejudice and automatic egalitarian goal activation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1514-1519. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.003
Johnson A.G. (2008). Privilege as paradox. In P.S. Rothenberg (ed.), White Privilege:
Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism. New York: Worth Publishers.
Jones, J.M. (1997). Prejudice and racism (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict:
Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.893
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 103
Kivel, P. (1996). Uprooting racism: How White people can work for racial justice.
Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Kivel, P. (2011). Uprooting racism: How White people can work for racial justice. (3rd
ed.) Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Knoerr, H., Vandergrift, L., & Weinberg, A. (Producers). (2010, September 6).
University of Ottawa’s teaching study skills podcasts [Episode 6]. The Cornell
Note-Taking System. Podcast retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKASLc-RJfw
Knowles, E.D., Lowery, B.S., Hogan, C.M., & Chow, R.M. (2009). On the malleability
of ideology: Motivated construals of color blindness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96, 857-869. doi:10.1037/a0013595
Kordesh, K., Spanierman, L. B., & Neville, H. A. (2013). White university students’
racial affect: Understanding the antiracist type. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 6, 33-50. doi:10.1037/a0030102
Kuntsman, J.W., Plant, E.A., Zielaskowski, K., & LaCosse, J. (2013). Feeling in with the
outgroup: Outgroup acceptance and the internalization of the motivation to
respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105,
443-457. doi:10.1037/a0033082
LaFleur, N. K., Leach, M. M., & Rowe, W. (2002). Manual: Oklahoma Racial Attitudes
Scale. Unpublished manual.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 104
LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. L. K., & Hernandez, A. (1991). Development and
factor structure of the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory- Revised.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 380 –388.
doi:10.1037/0735-7028.22.5.380
Ladany, N., Inman, A. G., Constantine, M. G., & Hofheinz, E. W. (1997). Supervisee
multicultural case conceptualization ability and self-reported multicultural
competence as functions of supervisee racial identity and supervisor focus.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 284 –293. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.44.3.284
Lewis, A. (2001). There is no “race” in the schoolyard: Color-blind ideology in an
(almost) all-white school. American Education Research Journal, 38, 781-811.
doi:10.3102/00028312038004781
Lipkus, I. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a Global Belief in a Just
World Scale and the exploratory analysis of the Multidimensional Belief in a Just
World Scale. Personality and Individual Difference, 12, 1171-1178.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90081-L
Lipsitz, G. (2008). The possessive investment in whiteness. In P.S. Rothenberg (ed.),
White Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism. New York:
Worth Publishers.
Locke, E.A. (2014). The real meaning of color-blind racial ideology. American
Psychologist, 69, 310. doi:10.1037/a003573.
Lukasiewicz, M., Harvey, E., Sawyer, D., ABC News., & CorVision Media. (2005). True
colors. S.l.: CorVision Media. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 105
McConahay, J.B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In
J. Dovidio & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: Theory
and research (pp. 91-125). New York: Academic Press.
McConahay, J.B. & Hough, Jr., J.C. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues,
32, 23-45. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02493.x
McConahay, J. B., Hardee, B. B., & Batts, V. (1981). Has racism declined? It depends on
who's asking and what is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25, 563-579.
doi:10.1177/002200278102500401
McIntosh, P. (2008). White Privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In P.S.
Rothenberg (ed.), White Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side of
Racism. New York: Worth Publishers.
McKinney, K.D., & Feagin, J.R. (2003). Diverse perspectives on doing antiracism: The
younger generation. In A.W. Doane & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White out: The
continuing significance of racism (pp. 233-251). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mazziotta, A., Mummendey, A., & Wright, S.C. (2011). Vicarious intergroup contact
effects: Applying social-cognitive theory to intergroup contact research. Group
Processes Intergroup Relations,14, 255-274. doi: 10.1177/1368430210390533.
Neville, H.A., Awad, G.H., Brooks, J.E., Flores, M.P. & Bluemel, J. (2013). Color-blind
racial ideology: Theory, training, and measurement implications in psychology.
American Psychologist, 68, 455-466. doi:10.1037/a0033282
Neville, H.A. & Awad, G.H. (2014). Why racial color-blindness is myopic. American
Psychologist, 69, 313-314. doi:10.1037/a0036298.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 106
Neville, H.A., Lilly, R.L., Duran, G., Lee, R.M., & Browne, L. (2000). Construction and
initial validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 47, 59-70. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.59
Neville, H. A., Low, K. S. D., Liao, H., Walters, J. M., & Landrum-Brown, J. (2006).
Color-blind racial ideology: Testing a context-based legitimizing ideology model.
Unpublished manuscript.
Neville, H. A., Poteat, V. P., Lewis, J. A., & Spanierman, L. B. (2014). Changes in White
College Students’ Color-Blind Racial Ideology Over 4 Years: Do Diversity
Experiences Make a Difference? Journal of Counseling Psychology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035168
Neville, H.A, Spanierman, L.B., & Doan, B. (2006). Exploring the relationship between
colorblind racial ideology and multicultural counseling competencies. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 275-290. doi:10.1037/1099-
9809.12.2.275.
Neville, H. A., Worthington, R. L., & Spanierman, L. B. (2001). Race, power, and
multicultural counseling psychology: Understanding White privilege and color-
blind racial attitudes. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M.
Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 257-288).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nilsson, J. E., Marszalek, J., Linnemeyer, R., Bahner, A., & Hansen, L. (2009).
Development and assessment of the Social Issues Advocacy Scale (SIAS).
Unpublished manuscript.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 107
Norton, M.I., Sommers, S.R., Apfelbaum, E.P., Pura, N., & Ariely, D. (2006).
Colorblindness and interracial interaction: Playing the political correctness game.
Psychological Science, 17, 949-953. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01810.x
O’Connell, H.A. (2012). The impact of slavery on racial inequality in poverty in the
contemporary U.S. south. Social Forces, 90, 713-734. doi:10.1093/sf/sor021
O’Gorman, M. (2009). Educational disparity and the persistence of the black–white wage
gap in the U.S. Economics of Education Review, 29, 526-542.
doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.11.003
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551. U.S. 701
(2007).
Parham, T. A., White, J. L., & Ajamu, A. (1999). The psychology of Blacks: An African-
centered perspective (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pedersen, P. (2006). Five anti-racism strategies. In M. G. Constantine & D.W. Sue (Eds.),
Addressing racism: Facilitating cultural competence in mental health and
educational settings. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pinterits, J. E., Poteat, V. P., & Spanierman, L. B. (2009). The White privilege attitudes
scale: Development and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56,
417-429. doi:10.1037/a0016274
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without
prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811-832.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 108
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2001). Responses to other-imposed pro-Black pressure:
Acceptance or backlash? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 486-
501. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1478
Plant, E.A., Devine, P.G., & Brazy, P.C. (2003). The bogus pipeline and motivations to
respond without prejudice: Revisiting the fading and faking of racial prejudice.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 187–200.
doi:10.1177/1368430203006002004
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163. U.S. 537, 559 (1896)
Ponterotto, J. G., Burkard, A., Rieger, B. P., Grieger, I., D’Onofrio, A., Dubuisson, A.,
Heenehan, M., Millstein, B., Parisi, M., Rath, J. F., & Sax, G. (1995).
Development and initial validation of the Quick Discrimination Index (QDI).
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 1026-1031.
doi:10.1177/0013164495055006011.
Ponterotto, J. G., Gretchen, D., Utsey, S. O., Rieger, B. P., & Austin, R. (2002). A
revision of the multicultural counseling awareness scale. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 30, 153–180. doi:10.1002/j.2161-
1912.2002.tb00489.x
Ponterotto, J.G., Utsey, S.O. & Pedersen, P.B. (2006). Preventing prejudice: A guide for
counselors, educators, and parents (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Pope-Davis, D.B., Liu, W.M., Nevitt, J. & Toporek, R.L. (2000). The development and
initial validation of the Multicultural Environmental Inventory: A preliminary
investigation. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6, 57-64.
doi:10.1037/1099-9809.6.1.57. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 109
Portales, M. (2003). Can the Supreme Court constitutionally uphold the Hopwood
opinion?: Race, Color-blindness and public opinion before Bakke. Callaloo, 26.1,
26–46. doi:10.1353/cal.2003.0026.
Poteat, V. P., & Spanierman, L. B. (2008). Further validation of the Psychosocial Costs
of Racism to Whites scale among employed adults. The Counseling Psychologist,
36, 871–894. doi:10.1177/0011000007310002.
Poteat, V. P., & Spanierman, L. B. (2012). Modern racism attitudes among White
students: The role of dominance and authoritarianism and the mediating effects of
racial color-blindness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 758–774.
doi:10.1080/00224545.2012.700966
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of
Engineering Education, 93, 223–231. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.
Rankin, S. (2000). Assessment of Campus Climate for Underrepresented Groups.
Unpublished instrument.
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-
Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125.
doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I
Richeson, J.A. & Nussbaum, R.J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus color-
blindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 417-423.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.002.
Richeson, J.A. & Trawalter, S. (2008). The threat of appearing prejudiced and race-based
attentional biases. Psychological Science, 19, 98-102. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2008.02052.x. Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 110
Rose, L.R. (1996). White identity and counseling White allies about racism. B.P. Bowser
& R.G. Hunt (Eds.), Impacts of racism on White Americans (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sammon, C.C., & Speight, S.L. (2008). A Qualitative investigation of graduate student
changes associated with multicultural counseling courses. The Counseling
Psychologist, 36, 814-838. doi: 10.1177/0011000008316036.
Schofield, J. W. (1986). Causes and consequences of the colorblind perspective. In S.
Gaertner & J. Dovidio (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism: Theory and
practice. (pp. 231-253). New York: Academic Press.
Schlomer, G.L., Bauman, S. & Card, N.A. (2010). Best practices for missing data
management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 1-
10. doi:10.1037/a0018082.
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682. U.S._(2014)
Sealing, K.E. (1998). The myth of a color-blind constitution. Washington University
Journal of Urban & Contemporary Law, 54, 157-210.
Sears, D.O. & Henry, P.J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 259–275 doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.85.2.259.
Seaton, E.K., Caldwell, C.H., & Sellers, R.M. (2010). An intersectional approach for
understanding perceived discrimination and psychological well-being among
African American and Caribbean Black youth. Developmental Psychology, 46,
1372-1379. doi:10.1037/a0019869.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 111
SGuin, C., Pelletier, L.G., & Hunsley, J. (1998). Toward a model of environmental
activism. Environment and Behavior, 30, 628-652. doi:
10.1177/001391659803000503.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social
hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smedley, B., Stith, A., & Nelson, A. (2002). Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and
ethnic disparities in health care. Washington, D.C.: The National
Academies Press.
Soble, J.R., Spanierman, L.B. & Laio, H.Y. (2011). Effects of a Brief Video Intervention
on White University Students’ Racial Attitudes. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 58, 151-157. doi:10.1037/a0021158.
Spanierman, L. B., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites
Scale (PCRW): Construction and initial validation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 51, 249–262. doi:10.1037/a0015432
Spanierman, L.B., Poteat, V.P., Beer, A.M., & Armstrong, P.I. (2006). Psychosocial
Costs of Racism to Whites: Exploring Patterns Through Cluster Analysis. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 53, 434–441. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.4.434
Spanierman, L. B., Poteat, V. P., Wang, Y. F., & Oh, E. (2008). Psychosocial costs of
racism to White counselors: Predicting various dimensions of multicultural
counseling competence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 75–88.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.1.75.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 112
Spanierman, L.B., Todd, N.R., & Anderson, C.J. (2009). Psychosocial Costs of Racism to
Whites: Understanding Patterns Among University Students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 56, 239–252. doi:10.1037/a0015432
Tabachnick, B.C. & Fidell, L.S. (2006). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Tatum, B. (2003). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other
conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.
Todd, N. R., Spanierman, L. B., & Aber, M. S. (2010). White students reflecting on
Whiteness: Understanding emotional responses. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 3, 97–110. doi:10.1037/a0019299
Vera, E.M., Buhin, L., & Shin, R.Q. (2006). The pursuit of social justice and the
elimination of racism. In M. G. Constantine & D.W. Sue (Eds.), Addressing
racism: Facilitating cultural competence in mental health and educational
settings (p. 272). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Vera, E.M. & Speight, S.L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and
counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31,
253-272. doi:10.1177/0011000003031003001
Wang, Y., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K.
(2003). The Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy: Development, validation, and
reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 221– 234. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.50.2.221
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 113
Wise, T. (2008). Membership has its privileges: Thoughts on acknowledging and
challenging whiteness. In P.S. Rothenberg (ed.), White Privilege: Essential
Readings on the Other Side of Racism. New York: Worth Publishers.
Wright, R. & Kinnamon, K. (1993). Conversations with Richard Wright. University Press
of Mississippi.
Worthington, R.L., Navarro, R.L., Loewy, M., & Hart, J. (2008). Color-blind racial
attitudes, social dominance orientation, racial- ethnic group membership and
college students’ perceptions of campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 1, 8-19. doi:10.1037/1938-8926.1.1.8.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 114
FIGURES
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 115
FIGURE 1. 2X2 Mixed MANCOVA (Total n=85)
TIME! TIME 1 TIME 3
GROUP"
INTERVENTION n=45 n=23
CONTROL n=40 n=20
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 116
APPENDICES
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 117
APPENDIX A DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Experimental Condition:
Total length: 19-24 minutes
Video documentary about race-based discrimination and White privilege. Author created questions for follow-up after the video.
1. Any reactions?
2. Was anyone surprised?
3. How did it make you feel?
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 118
APPENDIX B
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Control Condition:
Total length: 11-16 minutes
Video summarizes the steps of the Cornell note-taking system. Author created questions for follow-up after the video.
1. Any reactions?
2. Was anyone surprised?
3. How did it make you feel?
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 119
APPENDIX C
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
1. WHAT IS YOUR AGE?______
2. WHAT IS YOUR SELF-IDENTIFIED GENDER? ______Female ______Male ______Transgender ______Other
3. WHAT IS YOUR RACE? ___White/Caucasian ___Other
4. WHAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION? ___ Exclusively heterosexual ___ Mostly heterosexual ___ Bisexual ___ Lesbian ___ Gay ___ Other; please describe ______
5. WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT RELATIONSHIP STATUS? ___ Single ___ In a committed relationship ___ Married/civil union ___ Co-habitating ___ Separated ___ Divorced ___ Widowed
6. ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED? Yes No Retired 6a. IF YES, WHAT IS YOUR EMPLOYMENT STATUS? ___ Full-time (35 hours or more per week) ___ Part-time (less than 35 hours per week)
7. PLEASE ESTIMATE YOUR CURRENT PERSONAL INCOME ___ less than $20,000 per year ___ $20,000 - $40, 000 per year ___ $45,000 - $60,000 per year ___ $60,000 - $80,000 per year ___ $80,000 - $100,000 per year ___ more than $100,000 per year; describe______Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 120
8. WHAT IS YOUR YEAR IN SCHOOL? ___ Freshman ___ Sophomore ___ Junior ___ Senior
9. ARE YOU AN UNDERGRADUATE?
_____YES
_____NO
10. ARE YOU A PART-TIME OR FULL-TIME STUDENT?
_____PART-TIME
_____FULL-TIME
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 121
APPENDIX D
COLORBLIND RACIAL ATTITUDES SCALE (CoBRAs)
How much do you agree with the following statements? ______1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree agree ______
1. _____ Everyone who works hard, no matter what race they are, has an equal chance to become rich. 2. _____ Race plays a major role in the type of social services (such as type of health care or day care) that people receive in the U.S. 3. _____ It is important that people begin to think of themselves as American and not African American, Mexican American, or Italian American. 4. _____ Due to racial discrimination, programs such as affirmative action are necessary to help create equality. 5. _____ Racism is a major problem in the U.S. 6. _____ Race is very important in determining who is successful and who is not. 7. _____ Racism may have been a problem in the past, but it is not an important problem today. 8. _____ Racial and ethnic minorities do not have the same opportunities as White people in the U.S. 9. _____ White people in the U.S. are discriminated against because of the color of their skin. 10. ____ Talking about racial issues causes unnecessary tension. 11. ____ It is important for political leaders to talk about racism to help work through or solve society’s problems. 12. ____ White people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin. 13. ____ Immigrants should try to fit into the culture and adopt the values of the U.S. 14. ____ English should be the only official language in the U.S. 15. ____ White people are more to blame for racial discrimination in the U.S. than racial and ethnic minorities. 16. ____ Social policies, such as affirmative action, discriminate unfairly against White people. 17. ____ It is important for public schools to teach about the history and contributions of racial and ethnic minorities. 18. ____ Racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin. 19. ____ Racial problems in the U.S. are rare, isolated situations. 20. ____ Race plays an important role in who gets sent to prison.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 122
APPENDIX E MOTIVATION TO RESPOND WITHOUT PREJUDICE SCALE
PLEASE GIVE YOUR RESPONSES ACCORDING TO THE SCALE BELOW
1 (strongly disagree) ------9 (strongly agree)
1. ______Because of today's PC (politically correct) standards I try to appear non- prejudiced toward Black people. 2.______Being non-prejudiced toward Black people is important to my self-concept. 3. ______I try to hide any negative thoughts about Black people in order to avoid negative reactions from others. 4.______If I acted prejudiced toward Black people, I would be concerned that others would be angry with me. 5.______Because of my personal values, I believe that using stereotypes about Black people is wrong. 6.______I attempt to appear non-prejudiced toward Black people in order to avoid disapproval from others. 7. ______I try to act non-prejudiced toward Black people because of pressure from others. 8.______I am personally motivated by my beliefs to be non-prejudiced toward Black people. 9.______I attempt to act in non-prejudiced ways toward Black people because it is personally important to me. 10.______According to my personal values, using stereotypes about Black people is OK.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 123
APPENDIX F PSYCHOSOCIAL COSTS OF RACISM TO WHITES SCALE (PCRW)
PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BY INSERTING ONLY ONE NUMBER NEXT TO THE ITEM FROM THE CHART BELOW. YOUR POSSIBLE CHOICES RANGE FROM 1-6. PLEASE ANSWER HONESTLY, AS THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. AVOID ANSWERING AS YOU THINK YOU “SHOULD” FEEL OR AS HOW YOU WOULD EXPECT OTHERS TO ANSWER. ALL RESPONSES ARE COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
1.______When I hear about acts of racial violence, I become angry or depressed. 2.______I feel safe in most neighborhoods, regardless of the racial composition. 3.______I feel helpless about not being able to eliminate racism. 4.______Sometimes I feel guilty about being White. 5.______I have very few friends of other races. 6.______I become sad when I think about racial injustice. 7.______Being White makes me feel personally responsible for racism. 8.______I never feel ashamed about being White. 9.______I am fearful that racial minority populations are rapidly increasing in the U.S., and my group will no longer be the numerical majority. 10.______I am angry that racism exists. 11.______I am distrustful of people of other races. 12.______I feel good about being White. 13.______I often find myself fearful of people of other races. 14.______Racism is dehumanizing to people of all races, including Whites. 15.______I am afraid that I abuse my power and privilege as a White person. 16.______It disturbs me when people express racist views.
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 124
APPENDIX G
Activism Orientation Scale (AOS)
Instructions. Please respond to the following questions by choosing a number that best represents how likely it is that you will engage in each of the following activities in the future. Choose from: "Extremely Unlikely," "Unlikely," "Likely," or "Extremely Likely.”
Extremely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely Likely Likely
0 1 2 3
1. Display a poster or bumper sticker with a political message? ______2. Invite a friend to attend a meeting of a political organization or event? ______
3. Purchase a poster, t-shirt, etc. that endorses a political point of view? ______4. Serve as an officer in a political organization? ______5. Engage in a political activity in which you knew you will be arrested? ______6. Attend an informational meeting of a political group? ______7. Organize a political event (e.g. talk, support group, march)? ______8. Give a lecture or talk about a social or political issue? ______9. Go out of your way to collect information on a social or political issue? ______10. Campaign door-to-door for a political candidate? ______11. Present facts to contest another person’s social or political statement? ______12. Donate money to a political candidate? ______13. Vote in a non-presidential federal, state, or local election? ______14. Engage in a physical confrontation at a political rally? ______15. Send a letter or e-mail expressing a political opinion to the editor of a periodical or television show? ______16. Engage in a political activity in which you feared that some of your possessions would be damaged? ______17. Engage in an illegal act as part of a political protest? ______18. Confront jokes, statements, or innuendoes that opposed a particular group’s cause? ______19. Boycott a product for political reasons? ______20. Distribute information representing a particular social or political group’s cause? ______21. Engage in a political activity in which you suspect there would be a confrontation with the police or possible arrest? ______22. Send a letter or email about a political issue to a public official? ______23. Attend a talk on a particular group’s social or political concerns? ______24. Attend a political organization's regular planning meeting? ______25. Sign a petition for a political cause? ______26. Encourage a friend to join a political organization? ______Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 125
27. Try to change a friend's or acquaintance's mind about a social or political issue? ______28. Block access to a building or public area with your body? ______29. Donate money to a political organization? ______30. Try to change a relative's mind about a social or political issue? ______31. Wear a t-shirt or button with a political message? ______32. Keep track of the views of members of Congress regarding an issue important to you? ______33. Participate in discussion groups designed to discuss issues or solutions of a particular social or political group? ______34. Campaign by phone for a political candidate? ______35. Engage in any political activity in which you fear for your personal safety? ______
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 126
APPENDIX H
Table 1. Procedures Pre-intervention Post-intervention Follow-up Time 1 Intervention Time 2 Time 3 Experimental 1. CoBRAS Race video/ 1. CoBRAS 1. CoBRAS condition 2. MRWP Scale Discussion 2. MRWP Scale 2. MRWP 3. PCRW Scale (17 minutes) 3. PCRW Scale Scale 4. AOS 4. AOS 3. PCRW Scale 4. AOS
Control 1. CoBRAS Study skills 1. CoBRAS 1. CoBRAS condition 2. MRWP Scale video/ 2. MRWP Scale 2. MRWP 3. PCRW Scale Discussion 3. PCRW Scale Scale 4. AOS (11 minutes) 4. AOS 3. PCRW Scale 4. AOS
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 127
Table 2. Demographic Information ______Characteristic N Percentage ______
Age 18 years old 20 24.4 19 years old 18 22.0 20 years old 24 29.3 21 years old 12 14.6 22 years old 5 6.1 23 years old 2 2.4 37 years old 1 1.2
Sexual orientation Exclusively heterosexual 66 79.5 Mostly heterosexual 8 9.6 Bisexual 3 3.6 Gay 3 3.6 Lesbian 0 0.0 Other 3 3.6 Pansexual 2 2.4 Questioning 1 1.2
Current relationship status Single 48 57.8 In a committed relationship 33 49.8 Co-habitating 1 1.2
Current employment status Employed 44 53.0 Full-time (35 hours or more per week) 3 3.6 Part-time (35 hours or less per week) 41 49.4 Not employed 39 47.0
Current year in school Freshman 33 39.8 Sophomore 21 25.3 Junior 20 24.1 Senior 8 9.6
Annual Income Less than $20,000 78 94.0 $20,000-$40,000 3 3.6 $45,000-$60,000 1 1.2
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 128
Table 3. Pretest Skewness and Kurtosis Values for All Scale Scores ______
Scale Skewness Standard Error of Kurtosis Standard Error Skewness of Kurtosis ______
CoBRAS .10 .26 -.48 .52 MWRP -.60 .26 -.14 .52 PCRW -.48 .26 -.08 .52 AOS .63 .26 .10 .52 ______Note: Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS), Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice (MWRP), Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites (PCRW), Activism Orientation Scale (AOS)
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 129
Table 4. Posttest Skewness and Kurtosis Values for All Scale Scores ______
Scale Skewness Standard Error of Kurtosis Standard Error Skewness of Kurtosis ______
CoBRAS .32 .26 -.44 .52 MWRP -.28 .26 -.48 .52 PCRW -.53 .26 .02 .52 AOS .71 .26 .28 .52 ______Note: Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS), Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice (MWRP), Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites (PCRW), Activism Orientation Scale (AOS)
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 130
Table 5. Follow-up Skewness and Kurtosis Values for CoBRAS ______
Scale Skewness Standard Error of Kurtosis Standard Error Skewness of Kurtosis ______
CoBRAS .12 .35 -.64 .70 ______Note: Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS)
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 131
Table 6.
Pretest Means, Standard Deviations, Observed Ranges, Potential Ranges and Coefficient Alphas for Primary Variables of Interest ______
Measure n M SD Observed Potential Cronbach’s α Range Range ______
CoBRAS 83 56.8 16.0 22-92 20-120 .90 CoBRAS RP 83 22.9 7.3 8-37 7-42 .83 CoBRAS ID 83 21.0 6.9 8-37 7-42 .81 CoBRAS BR 83 12.9 4.9 6-26 6-36 .77 MRWP 83 65.4 12.1 35-88 9-90 .74 MRWP I 83 38.6 7.4 12-45 5-45 .85 MRWP E 83 26.9 8.9 5-45 5-45 .41 PCRW 83 54.4 8.6 29-69 16-96 .61 PCRW E 83 29.1 5.1 12-36 6-36 .73 PCRW G 83 12.7 5.0 5-24 5-30 .64 PCRW F 83 12.7 4.2 5-26 5-30 .58 AOS 83 37.4 22.0 2-105 0-105 .96 AOS C 83 34.3 19.2 2-84 0-84 .96 AOS H 83 3.0 4.2 0-21 0-21 .93 ______Note: Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS), Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale- Racial Privilege Subscale (CoBRAS RP), Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale-Institutional Discrimination Subscale (CoBRAS ID), Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale-Blatant Racism Subscale (CoBRAS BR), Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice (MWRP), Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice-Internal Subscale (MWRP I), Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice-External Subscale (MWRP E), Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites (PCRW), Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites-Empathy Subscale (PCRW E), Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites-Guilt Subscale (PCRW G), Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites-Fear Subscale (PCRW F), Activism Orientation Scale (AOS), Activism Orientation Scale-Conventional Subscale (AOS C), Activism Orientation Scale- High Risk Subscale (AOS H)
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 132
Table 7.
Posttest Means, Standard Deviations, Observed Ranges, Potential Ranges and Coefficient Alphas for Primary Variables of Interest ______
Measure n M SD Observed Potential Cronbach’s α Range Range ______
CoBRAS 83 52.8 17.6 21-98 20-120 .92 CoBRAS RP 83 20.0 7.9 8-35 7-42 .86 CoBRAS ID 83 20.6 7.9 7-39 7-42 .85 CoBRAS BR 83 12.3 4.6 6-24 6-36 .77 MRWP 83 66.7 13.4 34-89 9-90 .78 MRWP I 83 39.1 7.9 17-45 5-45 .86 MRWP E 83 27.6 10.5 5-45 5-45 .86 PCRW 83 55.3 8.4 30-73 16-96 .62 PCRW E 83 30.0 5.0 14-36 6-36 .77 PCRW G 83 13.2 5.3 5-28 5-30 .69 PCRW F 83 12.3 4.0 5-24 5-30 .59 AOS 83 37.8 24.0 1-105 0-105 .97 AOS C 83 34.8 21.1 1-84 0-84 .97 AOS H 83 3.0 4.8 0-21 0-21 .97 ______Note: Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS), Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale- Racial Privilege Subscale (CoBRAS RP), Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale-Institutional Discrimination Subscale (CoBRAS ID), Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale-Blatant Racism Subscale (CoBRAS BR), Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice (MWRP), Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice-Internal Subscale (MWRP I), Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice-External Subscale (MWRP E), Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites (PCRW), Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites-Empathy Subscale (PCRW E), Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites-Guilt Subscale (PCRW G), Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites-Fear Subscale (PCRW F), Activism Orientation Scale (AOS), Activism Orientation Scale-Conventional Subscale (AOS C), Activism Orientation Scale- High Risk Subscale (AOS H)
Intervention to Reduce Color-Blind Racial Attitudes 133
Table 8.
Follow-up Means, Standard Deviations, Observed Ranges, Potential Ranges and Coefficient Alphas for Primary Variables of Interest ______
Measure n M SD Observed Potential Cronbach’s α Range Range ______
CoBRAS 45 56.8 19.9 21-103 20-120 .93 CoBRAS RP 45 21.3 8.8 7-39 7-42 .89 CoBRAS ID 45 21.3 7.4 8-42 7-42 .85 CoBRAS BR 45 14.2 6.6 6-28 6-36 .87 ______Note: Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS), Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale- Racial Privilege Subscale (CoBRAS RP), Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale-Institutional Discrimination Subscale (CoBRAS ID), Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale-Blatant Racism Subscale (CoBRAS BR)