Variables in interracial aggression: Anonymity, expected retaliation, and a riot.

Abstract

Two experiments employing white subjects examined the effects of anonymity, expected retaliation, race of target, and a campus racial disturbance on delivered and anticipated aggression (electric shock). Prior to statistical treatment, the data were subjected to principal components analyses, with three aggression components being identified: general direct aggression, extremes in direct aggression, and indirect aggression. In Experiment I, it was found that less direct and more indirect forms of aggression were delivered to black than to white targets when there was opportunity for the target to retaliate. When retaliation was unlikely, the subjects delivered more direct forms of aggression to black than to white targets. Following a campus racial disturbance, there were increases in direct forms of aggression toward black targets, with such aggression now being less dependent on the opportunity for retaliation (Experiment II). In both experiments more direct aggression was anticipated from black than from white targets. The results support the conclusion that white persons have learned to fear black retaliation, but that this fear acts only to inhibit direct forms of aggression in certain denned situations.Among the most salient characteristics of the current black movement is the use of violence or the threat of violence to produce equality between black and white people. Black authors (e.g., Baldwin, 1963), as well as certain black militant leaders, have emphasized that the black man is determined to get equal rights and that white society must change or face reprisals. It is not surprising then to find some anecdotal evidence which suggests that white people have learned to fear black retaliation. A good example is an excerpt from a letter to the editor published by the Northern Illinois University student newspaper, The Northern Star:We are going to ask that our names be withheld from this letter. Don't bother writing in to sneer, 'what'sa matter whitey, you scared?' Yeah, we are. You militants may feel free to gloat. Those of us, 1 This study is based on a thesis presented by the first author to the Department of Psychology at Northern Illinois University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MA degree. It was reported at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Cincinnati, April 1970. The first and second authors are now at Florida State University.2 Requests for reprints should be sent to Seymore

Further evidence for the validity of the Taylor Aggression Paradigm

“…However, when retaliation was not possible, higher levels of explicit aggression were displayed. These differences were not observed when the opponent was Caucasian [Donnerstein et al, 1972]. Similar results were noted when participants could be censured for their aggressivity [Donnerstein and Donnerstein, 1973].…”

With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination.

“…In searching, we could find just seven laboratory studies in which discrimination was assessed using measures that appeared unambiguously to involve outgroup-directed hostile behavior. The behaviors were electric shock administration in six (Baron, 1979;Donnerstein & Donnerstein, 1972;Genthner & Taylor, 1973;Griffin & Rogers, 1970;Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1980;Rogers & Prentice-Dunn, 1981;Wilson & Rogers, 1975) and aversive noise administration in the seventh (Mummendey et al, 1992).…”

Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures.

“…Donnerstein, Donnerstein, Simon, & Ditrichs, 1972;Duncan, 1976;Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977;McConahay, 1983;Sigall & Page, 1971;Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974). In these experiments, White participants reliably manifest discriminatory behavior toward African American targets, for example, evaluating African Americans' job qualifications less favorably or being more likely to judge an African American target's behavior as aggressive.…”