Distinguishing “I don’t see color” from “Racism is a thing of the past”: Psychological correlates of avoiding race and denying racism.

Abstract

Scholars have proposed 2 separable dimensions of racial colorblind ideology: the first is centered on "not seeing color" (i.e., color evasion), and the second is centered on denying racism (i.e., power evasion). Yet, to date, there is no psychometric evidence for this distinction. In this article, we aim to fill this gap by establishing the presence of and characterizing differences between these 2 dimensions using both variable-centered and person-centered approaches. Study 1A (n ϭ 707) provides exploratory factor analytic evidence supporting the separability of power and color evasion. Study 1B (n ϭ 710) provides confirmatory evidence of this factor structure and evidence of discriminant validity. In Study 1B, 3 latent profiles based on power and color evasion were identified: acknowledgers (low color evasion, low power evasion), evaders (high color evasion, average power evasion), and deniers (average color evasion, average power evasion), which differed on relevant variables (e.g., modern racism, support for affirmative-action). In Study 2 (n ϭ 546), these profiles were replicated and extended by examining differences in attitudes and desire to engage in campus diversity activities. Implications for racial colorblind ideology theory and practical applications are discussed. Public Significance StatementThis study advances the idea that racial colorblindness has at least 2 separate dimensions: denying racism (i.e., power evasion) and avoiding race (i.e., color evasion). This highlights the need for researchers and practitioners to consider this distinction in theory, research, and practice to advance scholarship and action related to colorblindness.

White Fragility: An Emotion Regulation Perspective

“…Knowles et al, 2014;Phillips & Lowery, 2018). Among undergraduates, for instance, denying racism and minimizing the extent of racism were related to less support for affirmative action and less interest in campus diversity activities (Mekawi et al, 2020). Consistent with these findings, research demonstrates that avoiding feelings of guilt that stem from reflecting on White privilege can reduce willingness to engage in social action on behalf of members of disadvantaged groups (Leach et al, 2006;Swim & Miller, 1999).…”

“…In interacial interactions, White people often engage in strategic colorblindness where they avoid talking about race (Apfelbaum et al, 2008). Strategic colorblindness is enacted in order to appear nonprejudiced and manage the discomfort associated with race-related discussions (Apfelbaum et al, 2008;Mekawi et al, 2020). These efforts to avoid race talk often backfire.…”

“…White people may also minimize or deny the prevalence of racism to manage feelings of collective guilt. Avoiding feelings of guilt, however, is related to reduced empathy about racial inequality and less perspective taking (Mekawi et al, 2017(Mekawi et al, , 2020. Reduced intergroup empathy and perspective taking can, in turn, hinder the development of cross-race friendships (Spanierman et al, 2009).…”

“…Disengagement-focused forms of emotion regulation serve to deny the underlying problem of racism or distance oneself from one's role in that problem (Accapadi, 2017;Mekawi et al, 2020). As such, these forms of emotion regulation are particularly likely to impair White people's motivation to address anti-Black racism and White privilege (cf.…”

“…White fragility responses can negatively impact the individual enacting the response by exacerbating feelings of anxiety and eliciting inefficient cardiovascular responses (e.g., Mendes et al, 2002;Plant, 2004). White fragility responses can also shape interpersonal and societal outcomes by hindering the development of cross-race friendships (e.g., Mekawi et al, 2020;Spanierman et al, 2009) and decreasing support for reparative actions (e.g, Knowles et al, 2014;Leach et al, 2006). Given the short-term and long-term consequences of the emotional and regulatory responses that characterize White fragility, it is important to identify ways forward that avoid these consequences.…”