Racism

Dovidio, John F.; Gaertner, Samuel L.; Kawakami, Kerry

doi:10.4135/9781446200919.n19

Cited by 160 publications

(241 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

226

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, racism has become more subtle and covert, and old-fashioned measures of racism are generally not valid (i.e., most respondents provide socially desirable answers). Modern Racism is a more subtle form of prejudice that is conceptualized as anti-Black feelings and beliefs that are expressed in such a way that they can easily be concealed or explained away [38,39,40]. That is, rather than endorsing overt forms of discrimination and prejudice (e.g., segregation), individuals high in Modern Racism are more likely to support policies that indirectly disadvantage African Americans (e.g., ending affirmative action).…”

Section: Racismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexism, racism, and nationalism: Factors associated with the 2016 U.S. presidential election results?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the generally unexpected outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, many explanations were proposed to account for the results. Three narratives that received a considerable amount of media attention were that sexist, racist, and/or nationalist attitudes influenced voting decisions. Some empirical work has supported each of these accounts. However, sexism, racism, and nationalism are interrelated, and most studies about the 2016 election have not examined these three factors in conjunction to determine the unique contribution of each. Thus, we investigated the extent to which each factor (assessed as sexism toward women, Modern Racism, and U.S. nationalism) was uniquely related to evaluations of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, voting intentions, and actual voting behavior. Participants completed online questionnaires before (N = 489) and after (N = 192) the 2016 U.S. election. More positive evaluation of Clinton and intentions to vote for Clinton were associated with lower levels of Modern Racism. More positive evaluation of Trump was associated with greater sexism toward women, Modern Racism, and U.S. nationalism. Intent to vote for Trump was associated with greater sexism toward women and Modern Racism. However, only Modern Racism significantly predicted voting behavior. Greater Modern Racism was associated with greater likelihood of voting for Trump and lower likelihood of voting for Clinton. When considered in conjunction, Modern Racism was the most consistent predictor across the different election outcome variables. Sexism toward women and U.S. nationalism were generally not significantly related to evaluations, intentions to vote, or voting behavior when accounting for Modern Racism. Thus, our data indicate that Modern Racism was correlated with vote choice in the 2016 election.The 2016 U.S. presidential election was historic, not only because Hillary Clinton was the first female presidential candidate for a major political party, but also because of the generally surprising results. Going into the 2016 U.S. presidential election, most polls projected Hillary Clinton to win the election over Donald Trump [1]. Instead, Trump won the election with 304 PLOS ONE PLOS ONE | https://doi.

show abstract

Section: Racismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexism, racism, and nationalism: Factors associated with the 2016 U.S. presidential election results?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Medical and social scientific research demonstrates the persistence of substantial racial disparities in health and healthcare outcomes in the United States ( Abramson and Sánchez-Jankowski, 2012 , Ibrahim et al, 2003 , Institute of Medicine, 2003 , Freese and Lutfey, 2011 , Shavers et al, 2012 , Shuey and Wilson, 2008 , Williams and Collins, 1995 ). Despite efforts to reduce racial disparities in the past decade, salient differences persist on a range of indicators including access to care, the quality of care received, longevity, overall health status and a litany of specific conditions ranging from cardiovascular health to diabetes ( Dressler et al, 2005 , Bobo, 2001 , Dovidio and Gaertner, 1998 ). Examining, explaining, and addressing these patterns is an important aim of both social science and health policy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived discrimination in U.S. healthcare: Charting the effects of key social characteristics within and across racial groups

Abramson

Hashemi

Sánchez‐Jankowski

2015

Preventive Medicine Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article employs an original empirical analysis to contribute to scientific understandings of the relationship between social characteristics and perceptions of discrimination in healthcare encounters within and across racial categories in the U.S. Our analysis focuses on a diverse sample of 43,020 adults aged 18 to 85 drawn from the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS). We use a series of weighted descriptive statistics and logistic regression models to parse out factors associated with perceived discrimination and chart how they vary by race and ethnicity. Members of racial minorities were more likely to report perceptions of discrimination, and while the effect was somewhat mitigated by introducing patient and health-care system factors into our models, the race effects remained both statistically significant and of substantial magnitude (particularly for African Americans and Native Americans). Poor self-reported health and communication difficulties in the clinical encounter were associated with increased perceptions of discrimination across all groups. Further, among non-whites, increased education was associated with increased perceptions of discrimination net of other factors. These findings suggest efforts to reduce disparities in medical care should continue to focus on expanding the depth and quality of patient–provider interactions for disadvantaged racial groups, while also being attentive to other factors that affect perceived racial discrimination in healthcare encounters within and across racial groups.

show abstract

“…Yet recent claims of a race-blind society are contradicted by studies of race biases , in which people exhibit more positive responses to one race than another (1–6). To the extent that race biases are communicated explicitly, egalitarian norms encourage observers to discount them as a valid source of knowledge (7–8). For example, observers can consciously debate and publicly denounce race-biased aggressive acts, verbal statements, and hiring procedures, thus resisting conformity to these explicit race biases.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Subtle Transmission of Race Bias via Televised Nonverbal Behavior

Weisbuch

Pauker

Ambady

2009

Science

145

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As compared to more explicit racial slurs and sexist statements, biased facial expressions and body language may resist conscious identification and thus produce a hidden social influence. In four studies we show that race biases can be subtly transmitted via televised nonverbal behavior. Characters on 11 popular television shows exhibited more negative nonverbal behavior toward black than toward status-matched white characters. Critically, exposure to pro-white (vs. pro-black) nonverbal bias increased viewers’ bias even though patterns of nonverbal behavior could not be consciously reported. These findings suggest that hidden patterns of televised nonverbal behavior influence bias among viewers.

show abstract

Racism

Cited by 160 publications

References 0 publications

Sexism, racism, and nationalism: Factors associated with the 2016 U.S. presidential election results?

Sexism, racism, and nationalism: Factors associated with the 2016 U.S. presidential election results?

Perceived discrimination in U.S. healthcare: Charting the effects of key social characteristics within and across racial groups

The Subtle Transmission of Race Bias via Televised Nonverbal Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About