Students' race and teachers' social support affect the positive feedback bias in public schools.

Abstract

This research tested whether public school teachers display the positive feedback bias, wherein -Whites give more praise and less criticism to minorities than to fellow Whites for equivalent work. It also tested whether teachers lacking in school-based social support (i.e., support from fellow teachers and school administrators) are more likely to display the positive bias and whether the positive feedback bias applies to Latinos as well as to Blacks. White middle school and high school teachers from 2 demographically distinct public school districts gave feedback on a poorly written essay supposedly authored by a Black, Latino, or White student. Teachers in the Black student condition showed the positive bias, but only if they lacked school-based social support. Teachers in the Latino student condition showed the positive bias regardless of school-based support. These results indicate that the positive feedback bias may contribute to the insufficient challenge that undermines minority students' academic achievement.

Implications for the self determine benevolence and self-protection in intergroup relations

“…With an equal opportunity (i.e., groups’ outcomes are non-contingent) intergroup responses are predicted to be benign, and in some cases, the out-group will be favored over the in-group in service of self enhancement. With higher relative status, benevolence that does not jeopardize resource attainment enhances the benefactor’s social identity (Harber, Stafford, & Kennedy, 2010; Harber et al, 2012). Out-group benevolence also circumvents group based shame when the less fortunate are ignored (Shepherd, Spears & Manstead, 2013a), particularly when a groups’ high status is stable (Shepherd, Spears & Manstead, 2013b).…”

“…In the United States, as the percentage of Blacks in a state increases expenditure on welfare benefits decreases. Benevolence under low racial diversity occurs because the lower status out-group does not threaten in-group resource attainment (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001; Esses, Deaux, Lalonde, & Brown, 2010), establishes the majority groups’ egalitarianism (Harber et al, 2012; Scheepers, Branscomb, Spears & Doosje, 2002), and prevents group-based shame (Shepherd et al, 2013a, 2013b). …”

“…When evaluating academic performance (writing an essay), those from a high status group (Whites) evaluated the performance of a lower status out-group (Blacks) more positively than the in-group (Harber, 1998; 2004; Harber, Gorman, Gengaro, Butisingh, Tsang, Ouellette, 2012). When rating personality traits of in-group and out-group members, both Blacks and Whites rated the out-group more favorably than the in-group (Malloy, 2013).…”

“…When groups’ outcomes were non-contingent, social approach was equivalent for positively and negatively stereotyped out-groups, whereas the desire to collaborate on a task was greater under a positive than a negative competence stereotype. People were willing to engage in social activities with an out-group member regardless of their competence, because the motivation to be unbiased and egalitarian (Fiske, 2004; Harber et al, 2012) is incompatible with avoidance based on a capricious criterion (e.g. competence).…”

“…Those with high and low status were willing to engage in social activities with out-group members regardless of their perceived competence. Avoidance of members of an out-group based on characteristic such as race, ethnicity, or work habits is unacceptable because people are motivated to be unbiased and egalitarian (Fiske, 2004; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Harber et al, 2012). When the out-group was perceived as competent, members of a low status group were willing to engage in task collaboration; when stereotyped as less competent, avoidance followed.…”