Overt and Covert Racial Attitudes Towards African Americans and Native Americans MELISSA K

Home , Covert racism

Overt and Covert Racial Attitudes Towards African Americans and Native Americans MELISSA K. TIBBITS Contemporary theories of racial attitudes have stated that two distinct forms of Pennsylvania State University racism exist in America today—overt and covert. Recent studies have suggested that racial attitudes towards African Americans have become increasingly covert DENNIS R. COMBS * in their expression while overt racism has declined. However, racial attitudes towards other minority groups, such as Native Americans, have not been consistently University of Tulsa studied in this regard. This study examined self-reported overt and covert racial attitudes of 55 White college students towards Native Americans and African Americans. The results showed higher levels of overt and covert racism towards Native Americans as compared to African Americans. Social desirability and socioeconomic status were not related to racial attitudes. Possible reasons for differences in the expression of racial attitudes between the two groups are discussed.

ince the late 1960's, the expression of overt racism a belief that negative attitudes towards African towards African Americans has decreased and Americans were increasing nationally. Thus, this find- Ssupport for racial equality in public opinion polls ing is paradoxical to the report that racism is declin- has increased (Greeley & Sheatsley, 1971; Schuman, ing across the nation. To account for this discrepancy, Steeh, & Bobo, 1985; Henry & Sears, 2002). Despite researchers have focused on the idea that racism in these reported changes in social attitudes, racism is America has changed to become more covert/subtle arguably still a widespread problem in America (Clark, and less overt in nature (Krysan, 2000; Pettigrew, 2000; Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999; McNeilly et al., Sears & Henry, 2005). 1996; Utsey, 1998). Sigelman and Welch (1993) found One contemporary view that distinguishes between that nearly fifty percent of African Americans reported overt and covert racial attitudes is symbolic racism theory (Sears & Henry, 2005). Overt racism is similar Author Note. Melissa K. Tibbits was at the University of Tulsa when to “old-fashioned racism” and is characterized by an this study was conducted. She is currently at Pennsylvania State open support for racial discrimination, the use of pre- University. Dennis R. Combs is at the Department of Psychology, Civil War stereotypes, a preference for maintaining University of Tulsa (OK). Funding for this study was provided by an undergraduate research distance from other groups through segregation/social grant to Melissa K. Tibbits from Psi Chi and the University of Tulsa. distance, and opposition to racial equality (Henry & This research project was conducted as part of the Tulsa Sears, 2002). In contrast, symbolic racism is more Undergraduate Research Program (TURC) at the University of Tulsa. Dennis R. Combs served as the faculty advisor on this proj- covert in its expression and is believed to stem from ect. A portion of this study was presented at the 2004 Oklahoma continued problems from the civil rights movement. Psychological Society Annual Conference in Edmond, OK. Symbolic racism is based on the ideas that African Address correspondence regarding this article to Dennis R. Combs, Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa, Lorton Hall, Americans do not currently suffer from prejudice or Room 308, 600 South College Ave., Tulsa, OK 74104 (Email: den- discrimination, and African Americans have achieved [email protected]). equality, but still are not satisfied. Furthermore, African * Faculty supervisor Americans obtained rights/privileges they do not

30 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 2006 Copyright 2006 by Psi Chi, The National Honor Society in Psychology (Vol. 11, No. 1, 30–36 / ISSN 1089-4136). OVERT AND COVERT RACIAL ATTITUDES Tibbits and Combs deserve and disregarded traditional values such as racism towards Native Americans and if present, how work and individualism (Sears & Henry, 2003; 2005). it compares to other minority groups such as African A second contemporary view of racial attitudes is Americans. The authors found no published studies blatant and subtle racism theory (Pettigrew, 2000; that measured covert racial attitudes towards Native Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). Blatant prejudice is very Americans. Clearly, more information is needed to similar to the previously stated definition of overt or understand better the nature of Whites' attitudes “old-fashioned” racism. “Subtle prejudice,” like sym- towards Native Americans, and the consequences of bolic racism, is rooted in traditional values and involves these attitudes for Native Americans. an overemphasis on presumed cultural differences The purpose of this study was to examine levels between ethnic groups and a denial of positive emo- of overt and covert racism of Whites towards Native tions toward minority groups (Pettigrew & Meertens, Americans and African Americans. We predicted that 1995). For example, one may interpret the high unem- due to the widespread presence of Native American ployment rate of another ethnic group as an indication stereotypes, higher levels of overt/blatant racism would that the ethnic group as a whole does not culturally be reported towards Native Americans than African value a strong work ethic and then use this evaluation Americans. In addition, White participants were asked as a justification for negative feelings towards the eth- to complete a measure of social distance for Native nic group. Both symbolic racism and subtle racism Americans and African Americans in various social are consistent with the idea that a new, more covert roles. Social distance has been considered a form of form of racism exists among Whites (Krysan, 2000). overt racism in recent research, and we predicted that Although many of the conclusions about con- Whites would report greater levels of social distance temporary racial attitudes have been drawn from stud- towards Native Americans than for African Americans ies of overt and covert racism towards African (Ducote-Sabney, 2000; Henry & Sears, 2002). Due to Americans, very little research has examined racial the lack of data on levels of covert racism, we expected attitudes towards other minority groups, such as Native both groups would be relatively equivalent on these Americans (Ancis, Choney, & Sedlacek, 1996). Like measures. We assessed covert racism using measures African Americans, Native Americans have experi- of subtle prejudice and symbolic racism. We also exam- enced historical and current struggles with racism ined the relationship between racial attitudes, social (Belcourt-Dittloff & Stewart, 2000). One major con- desirability, and socioeconomic status. Since the expres- cern for Native Americans is the impact that stereo- sion of racism has social and personal implications, types have on racial attitudes. Native American we expected a positive relationship between the meas- stereotypes continue to persist in textbooks, on prod- ures of racism and social desirability (Biernat & uct labels, as mascots for sports teams, and in the Crandall, 1993; Rattazzi & Volpato, 2003; Sears, 1988). media, and have been characterized as negative and There has been inconsistent evidence on the rela- damaging (Ashley & Jarratt-Ziemski, 1999; Merskin, tionship between racism and SES level, so we make 2001; Trimble 1988). no prediction concerning this relationship (Clark et What is currently known about the racial attitudes al., 1999). of Whites towards Native Americans? The research evidence on this issue has been equivocal. Consistent Method with the research on African Americans, there is evi- Participants dence that the overt expression of negative stereo- The participants were 55 White college students types and attitudes towards Native Americans has (11 male and 44 female) recruited from a private uni- gradually decreased over time (Ancis et al., 1996; versity in Oklahoma. The mean age and educational Trimble, 1988). In contrast, a recent study found that level of the sample were 20.8 (SD = 1.6) and 14.3 years Whites reported more prejudiced attitudes towards (SD = 1.0), respectively. There were more female par- Native Americans than other ethnic groups, suggest- ticipants in the sample than male, χ2 (1, N = 55) = ing that overt racism towards Native Americans is still 19.0, p = .01. Socioeconomic status (SES) was meas- quite pervasive (Paniagua, O'Boyle, Tan, & Lew, 2000). ured with the Hollingshead four-factor index which Higher levels of overt racism may stem from a lack of computes an overall SES score based on level of edu- familiarity with Native Americans, cultural and reli- cation, occupation, gender, and martial status gious differences, and socioeconomic factors, but (Hollingshead, 1975; Cirino et al., 2002). Because all arguably the most important influence on racial atti- the participants were college students, SES values were tudes is the presence of Native American stereotypes based on parent data. The mean SES score of the sam- (Ancis et al.; Farley, 1997; Merskin, 2001). Another ple was 51.2 (SD = 10.0; range 21-66), which fell in the unanswered question concerns the level of covert middle class level (Hollingshead, 1975). There were

Spring 2006 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH 31 Copyright 2006 by Psi Chi, The National Honor Society in Psychology (Vol. 11, No. 1, 30–36 / ISSN 1089-4136). OVERT AND COVERT RACIAL ATTITUDES Tibbits and Combs

no differences on the racial attitude measures based Pettigrew, 1997). In contrast, subtle prejudice was on gender, so the participants were combined into a linked to higher rates of acceptance of outgroup mem- single group for the purpose of analysis. bers and less reported discrimination (Meertens & Pettigrew, 1997). In the present study, the internal Measures consistency of the Blatant Prejudice Scale was in the Demographic questionnaire. All participants com- moderate range for both the Native American (α = pleted a demographic questionnaire composed of .52) and African American (α = .53) versions. The questions concerning educational level, marital sta- internal consistency of the Subtle Prejudice Scale was tus, age, ethnicity, and information on parental edu- good for both the Native American (α = .77) and cation and occupation to allow computation of the African American (α = .81) versions. Hollingshead SES index score. Symbolic Racism 2000. The Symbolic Racism 2000 Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale - short scale (SR2K; Henry & Sears, 2002) is a contemporary version. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale measure of symbolic racism. Symbolic racism consists (M-C SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) assesses social of beliefs that minorities make excessive demands, desirability in a variety of populations. The scale meas- are no longer discriminated against, do not have a ures the tendency to not endorse items about com- strong work ethic, do not take responsibility for their mon everyday flaws and behaviors that may potentially life outcomes, and have advantages based on their lead to an unfavorable assessment by the researchers. ethnicity. The SR2K contains eight items rated on a Social desirability may be an important component Likert scale ranging from 1 (agreement) to 4 (disagree- for studies on racism, and it has been argued that col- ment). Lower scores indicate greater levels of symbolic lege students tend to avoid a direct expression of neg- racism. The SR2K has demonstrated good internal ative racial statements in research studies (Biernat & consistency levels in a large sample of college students Crandall, 1993). For this study, we used a 20-item ver- and underwent extensive psychometric development sion developed from the original 54-item scale (Strahan using factor analytic procedures (α = .79; Henry & & Gerbasi, 1972). The short version demonstrated Sears, 2002). Furthermore, the scale showed minimal comparable psychometric properties to the original correlations with measures of overt racism, thus sup- scale. Scores on the M-C SDS short version ranged porting the discriminant validity of the scale (Henry from 0-20, and all items were answered in a true/false & Sears, 2002). For the present study, the scale showed format. Higher scores reflected greater levels of social good levels of internal consistency for both the Native desirability. For this study, the internal consistency of American (α = .75) and African American (α = .78) the M-C SDS was good (α = .70). versions. Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scales. The Blatant Social Scale. The Social Scale (Byrnes & Kiger, and Subtle Prejudice Scales assess a person's racial 1988) is a variation of the original Borgardus Social attitudes according the blatant-subtle theory of racism Distance Scale, which has a long history of use in racism (as reviewed in Biernat & Crandall, 1993). The Blatant research (Bogardus, 1928). The Social Scale meas- Prejudice Scale is a 10-item scale that measures overt ures a person's self-reported comfort level with minor- beliefs of threat by minorities, rejection of minorities, ity groups in a variety of social roles and can be and opposition to intimacy with minorities (Pettigrew considered a measure of overt/blatant racism (Biernat & Meertens, 1995). The Subtle Prejudice Scale is a & Crandall, 1993; Henry & Sears, 2002). The scale 10-item scale that measures a person's belief in tradi- contains eight items rated on a Likert scale ranging tional values of work, the exaggeration of cultural dif- from 1 (very uncomfortable) to 7 (very comfortable). ferences, and the denial of positive emotions towards Participants in the present study rated how comfort- minorities (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). Both scales able they would feel with a minority individual as gov- are rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong dis- ernor, president, personal physician, renter, spiritual agreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Higher scores reflect counselor, roommate, date, and dance partner. The higher levels of blatant and subtle prejudice, respec- scale was constructed so that the roles differed in tively. Previous data on the two scales showed good amount of social contract and intimacy. For this study, levels of internal consistency, and the blatant-subtle we used Native American and African American ver- distinction has been supported by factor analysis sions. Because each item represents a different social (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). In addition, blatant role, we analyzed the individual items. In previous prejudice was associated with negative views on immi- research, the internal consistency was excellent (α gration policy, more conservative beliefs, and greater =.90), and the test-retest reliability for a 3-week period outgroup prejudice in a large sample of European was good (r = .94; Byrnes & Kiger, 1988). For the pres- participants (Biernat & Crandall, 1993; Meertens & ent study, the scales showed excellent levels of inter-

32 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 2006 Copyright 2006 by Psi Chi, The National Honor Society in Psychology (Vol. 11, No. 1, 30–36 / ISSN 1089-4136). OVERT AND COVERT RACIAL ATTITUDES Tibbits and Combs

TABLE 1 Summary of Correlations

Measure

Measure BPS - AA SPS - AA SR2K - AA BPS - NA SPS - NA SR2K - NA BPS - AA 1.0 .33* -.26 .39** .16 .15 SPS - AA 1.0 -.68** .21 .62** .59** SR2K - AA 1.0 -.19 -.50** .67** BPS - NA 1.0 .13 .09 SPS - NA 1.0 .61** SR2K - NA 1.0 SES Index -.22 -.20 .04 -.18 -.01 .11 Social Desirability .07 .18 -.08 -.15 .08 .02

Note. BPS-AA = Blatant Prejudice Scale-African American; SPS-AA = Subtle Prejudice Scale-African American; SR2K-AA = Symbolic Racism 2000-African American; BPS-NA = Blatant Prejudice Scale-Native American; SPS-NA = Subtle Prejudice Scale- Native American; SR2K-NA = Symbolic Racism 2000-Native American * p < .05; ** p < .005 (corrected level) nal consistency for both the Native American (α = .94) Table 1. Social desirability and SES level were not sig- and African American versions (α = .91). nificantly correlated with any of the racism measures. There were significant intercorrelations between the Procedure African American and Native American versions of We recruited participants for a study entitled the Blatant Prejudice Scale, the Subtle Prejudice Scale, “Attitudes Towards Others,” a title chosen to mini- and the Symbolic Racism 2000 scale. The Symbolic mize the possibility of a response bias that may affect Racism 2000 scale was significantly correlated with research on racial attitudes (see Thompson, Neville, the Subtle Prejudice Scale across both the Native Weathers, Poston & Atkinson, 1990). Participants American and African American versions. There was signed-up on a centralized board placed in the depart- a trend for a positive relationship between scores on ment of psychology. The measures were randomized the African American version of the Blatant and Subtle before administration and several filler scales were Prejudice Scales, but this relationship was not found included to distract participants from the purpose of on the Native American version. the study. Participants received extra credit for their Mean scores for the racism measures can be found time and effort. Participants were debriefed after com- in Table 2. We used a series of paired t tests to com- pletion of the study. pare the means on the racism measures. On the Symbolic Racism 2000 scale, there was a trend for Results greater levels of symbolic racism (i.e., lower scores Data analyses proceeded as follows. First, corre- reflect greater symbolic racism) reported towards lations between the measures of racism, social desir- African Americans than Native Americans, t(54) = 1.7, ability, and socioeconomic status (SES) were computed. p = .08. As predicted, there were significantly higher Due to the number of correlations, a corrected prob- levels of blatant prejudice reported towards Native ability level was set at .005, and correlations falling Americans than African Americans, t(54) = 2.0, p < above that level were considered to be nonsignificant. .05. Similarly, there were significantly levels of subtle Second, comparison t tests were conducted to deter- prejudice reported towards Native Americans as com- mine if differences were present in racial attitudes pared to African Americans, t(54) = 2.8, p < .05. Thus, towards Native Americans and African Americans on participants reported higher levels of blatant and sub- the Blatant Prejudice Scale, the Subtle Prejudice Scale, tle prejudice towards Native Americans that African the Symbolic Racism 2000 scale, and the Social Scale. Americans. A summary of correlations for the measures of Mean scores for the measure of social distance racism, social desirability, and SES are presented in (Social Scale) are also presented in Table 2. We used

Spring 2006 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH 33 Copyright 2006 by Psi Chi, The National Honor Society in Psychology (Vol. 11, No. 1, 30–36 / ISSN 1089-4136). OVERT AND COVERT RACIAL ATTITUDES Tibbits and Combs

TABLE 2 impact attitudes about the members of these groups are unclear. Still, there is emerging evidence that Mean Scores for Measures of Racism Whites do tend to express higher levels of prejudice and Social Distance Scores towards Native Americans than African Americans (Paniagua et al, 2000). Version In the present study, we predicted that higher lev- Native African els of overt racism would be expressed towards Native American American Americans than African Americans. Results from the Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Blatant Prejudice Scale support this hypothesis; Whites did express greater “blatant” prejudice towards Native Racism Measures Americans. It is possible that these attitudes are based Blatant Prejudice Scale 21.8 (5.7) 20.0 (5.1) on stereotypical images of Native Americans, which Subtle Prejudice Scale 23.8 (6.8) 21.6 (6.7) are mainly negative in description (Trimble, 1988). Symbolic Racism 2000 23.6 (4.0) 22.8 (4.0) Results from the social distance measure were not as clear. Although participants reported feeling more comfortable with an African American than Native Social Scale American spiritual advisor, they also reported feeling Governor 6.3 (1.0) 6.3 (1.1) more comfortable renting a house to and dating a President 6.0 (1.3) 6.1 (1.3) Native American person than an African American. In summary, we found evidence of higher levels of Personal Physician 6.3 (1.2) 6.2 (1.2) blatant racism towards Native Americans, but this Rent a house from me 6.4 (0.9) 6.1 (1.2) result was not fully supported on the social distance Spiritual Counselor 5.3 (1.9) 5.8 (1.5) scale. Roommate 6.3 (1.2) 6.2 (1.2) When interpreting these conflicting results, it may be beneficial to closely examine the kinds of stereotypes Date 5.7 (1.8) 5.2 (2.1) associated with Native Americans. One commonly rec- Dance Partner 6.3 (1.3) 6.3 (1.2) ognized stereotype is that Native Americans have a heightened level of spirituality and connection to Note.Social Scale rated from 1 (very uncomfortable) - 7 (very comfortable) nature (Trimble, 1988). Although this stereotype is arguably positive, it does serve to distinguish Native a series of paired t tests to compare the means on the Americans from worshippers of other mainstream Social Scale. Participants reported being significantly American religions, potentially explaining the dis- more comfortable renting a home to a Native American comfort with Native Americans as spiritual advisors than an African American, t(54) = 2.4, p < .02, and found in the current study. Similarly, a study on per- more comfortable with the idea of a going on a date ceptions of Native Americans in different situations with a Native American, t(54) = 2.1, p < .05, but felt found a negative perception for Native Americans more comfortable with an African American rather who received free health care; all other perceptions than Native American as their spiritual advisor, t(54) were positive (Ancis et al., 1996). Furthermore, other = -2.6, p < .01. No other significant differences were researchers note that although stereotypes of Native found on the Social Scale. Americans have become more positive over time, they are still stereotypes that do not fully encompass the Discussion diversity of tribes and individuals present in Native It has been argued that overtly stereotypical por- American cultures (Ashley & Jarratt-Ziemski, 1999; trayals of African Americans are still present in Merskin, 2001; Trimble, 1988). Thus, negative per- American culture today, but these stereotypes are also ceptions of Native Americans may be present only in balanced with varied and arguably realistic portrayals specific social situations and roles—a suggestion sup- of African Americans in a variety of occupations and ported in the present study. social roles. On the other hand, stereotypical images In terms of covert racism, participants reported of Native Americans in limited roles are nearly exclu- a higher level of prejudice towards Native Americans sively seen in the media and rarely questioned by those than African Americans on the Subtle Prejudice Scale outside Native American culture (Ashley & Jarratt- with a trend for differences on the Symbolic Racism Ziemski, 1999; Merskin, 2001). Whether these por- 2000. Participants tended to perceive Native Americans trayals of African Americans and Native Americans as being culturally different, having nontraditional merely reflect popular societal attitudes or directly work values, and viewed them less positively than

34 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 2006 Copyright 2006 by Psi Chi, The National Honor Society in Psychology (Vol. 11, No. 1, 30–36 / ISSN 1089-4136). OVERT AND COVERT RACIAL ATTITUDES Tibbits and Combs

African Americans. This result supports the idea sub- Ashley, J.S., & Jarratt-Ziemski, K. (1999). Superficiality and bias: tle forms of racism are present in today's society; how- The (mis)treatment of Native Americans in U.S. government textbooks. American Indian Quarterly, 23, 49-62. ever, longitudinal studies are needed to determine if Belcourt-Dittloff, A., & Stewart, J. (2000). Historical racism: this form of racism is actually increasing over time as Implications for Native Americans. American Psychologist, 55, predicted. We expected that differences would also 1166-1167. Biernat, M., & Crandall, C.S. (1993). Racial attitudes. In J.P. Robinson, be found on the measure of symbolic racism due to P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political atti- conceptual similarities with subtle prejudice, but this tudes (pp. 297-411). SanDiego: Academic Press. was not the case. This result could be explained by Bogardus, E.S. (1928). Immigration and race attitudes. Boston: Heath. Byrnes, D.A., & Kiger, G. (1988). Contemporary measures of atti- the fact that the subtle prejudice and symbolic racism tudes towards Blacks. Educational and Psychological Measurement, scales, though similar, are not identical concepts, a 48, 107-118. possibility supported by the modest correlation between Cirino, P.T., Chin, C.E., Sevcik, R.A., Wolf, M., Lovett, M., & Morris, R.D. (2002). Measuring socioeconomic status: Reliability and the two measures. Thus, it is possible that the differ- preliminary validity for different approaches. Assessment, 9, ences more than the similarities between the concepts 145-155. are especially important in the perception of Native Clark, R., Anderson, N.B., Clark, V.R., & Williams, D.R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans. American Psychologist, Americans. Finally, we found no evidence that social 54, 805-816. desirability or socioeconomic status impacted the Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desir- results of the study (Biernat & Crandall, 1993; Ratazzi ability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. & Volpato, 2003). A more complete examination of Couture, S., & Penn, D.L. (2003). Interpersonal contact and the the differences between these two theories of racism stigma of mental illness: A review of the literature. Journal of awaits further research. Mental Health, 12, 291-305. Ducote-Sabney, D. G. (2000). Assessing student attitudes towards The present study has several limitations that American Indians: A construct validity study. Dissertation Abstracts should be mentioned. First, familiarity with the Native International, 60, 5250. (UMI No. 4194217). American population may have been an important Farley, R. (1997). Racial trends and differences in the United States 30 years after the civil rights decade. Social Science Research, 26, factor in the study. In Oklahoma, the Native American 235-262. population has an increased presence and visibility, Greeley, A.M., & Sheatsley, P.B. (1971). Attitudes towards racial and many participants reported significant contact integration. Scientific American, 225, 13-19. Henry, P.J., & Sears, D.O. (2002). The symbolic racism 2000 scale. with persons from this group. Consistent with research Political Psychology, 23, 253-283. on stigma, we would predict that direct contact would Hollingshead, A.B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished reduce stereotypes and negative attitudes towards this manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Krysan, M. (2000). Prejudice, politics, and public opinion: group (see Couture & Penn, 2003 for a review). The Understanding the sources of racial policy attitudes. Annual study would have been enhanced if we included a Review of Sociology, 26, 135-168. measure of familiarity with Native Americans and McNeilly, M.D., Anderson, N.B., Armstead, C.A., Clark, R., Corbett, M., Robinson, E.L., Pieper, C.F., & Lepisto, E.M. (1996). The African Americans in the study. Second, our sample perceived racism scale: A multidimensional assessment of the consisted of college students who may be more lib- experience of White racism among African-Americans. Ethnicity eral and racially tolerant in terms of values (Beirnat & & Disease, 6, 154-166. Meertens, R.W., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Is subtle prejudice really Crandal, 1993). Because political values have been prejudice? Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 54-71. linked to racial attitudes, the inclusion of a measure Merskin, D. (2001). Winnebagos, Cherokees, Apaches, and Dakotas: of liberalism/conservatism would have been bene- The persistence of stereotyping of American Indians in American advertising brand names. Howard Journal of Communications, 12, fited the study (Henry & Sears, 2002; Sears & Henry, 159-169. 2003; 2005). Finally, as evident in Tables 1 and 2, the Paniagua, F.A., O'Boyle, M., Tan, V.L., & Lew, A.S. (2000). Self-eval- data are attenuated in range, which may have lowered uation of unintended biases and prejudices. Psychological Reports, 87, 823-829. the magnitude of the correlations found in the study. Pettigrew, T.F. (2000). Systemizing the predictors of prejudice. In Despite the limitations of the current study, the D.O. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds.). Racialized politics: The findings support the idea that although overtly racist debate about racism in America (pp. 280-301). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ideas towards African Americans appear to be less Pettigrew, T.F., & Meertens, R.W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prej- prevalent in contemporary America, overt racism udice in western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57-75. towards Native Americans is present. It is hoped that Schuman, H., Steeh, C., & Bobo, L. (1985). Racial attitudes in America: these results lead to a more accurate understanding of Trends and interpretations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. racial attitudes in America. Sears, D.O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P.A. Katz & D.A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 53-84). New York: Plenum Press. References Sears, D.O. & Henry, P.J., (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Ancis, J.R., Choney, S.K., Sedlacek, W.E. (1996). University stu- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 259-275. dent's attitudes toward American Indians. Journal of Multicultural Sears, D.O. & Henry, P.J., (2005). Over thirty years later: A con- Counseling and Development, 24, 26-36. temporary look at symbolic racism. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances

Spring 2006 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH 35 Copyright 2006 by Psi Chi, The National Honor Society in Psychology (Vol. 11, No. 1, 30–36 / ISSN 1089-4136). OVERT AND COVERT RACIAL ATTITUDES Tibbits and Combs

in experimental social psychology (pp. 95-150). San Diego, CA: American students. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 162- Elsevier Press 168. Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: Trimble, J.E. (1988). Stereotypical images, American Indians, and Black-White interaction and positive racial attitudes. Social Forces, prejudice. In P.A. Katz & D.A. Taylor, (Eds.), Eliminating racism: 71, 781-795. Proﬁles in controversy (pp.181-202). New York: Plenum Press. Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K.C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions Utsey, S.O. (1998). Assessing the stressful effects of racism: A review of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical of instrumentation. Journal of Black Psychology, 24, 269-288. Psychology, 28, 191-193. Thompson, C.E., Neville, H., Weathers, P.L., Poston, W.C., & Atkinson, D.R. (1990). Cultural mistrust and racism reaction among African