perception of subtle racism - american psychological ... · in addition, social dominance ......

The Counseling Psychologist2016, Vol. 44(2) 237 –266

© The Author(s) 2016Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0011000015625329

tcp.sagepub.com

Regular Manuscript

Perception of Subtle Racism: The Role of Group Status and Legitimizing Ideologies

Hsin-Ya Liao1, Ying-yi Hong2, and James Rounds3

AbstractIdentifying contemporary racism has been problematic as this type of racism, namely subtle racism, is difficult to discern, and the actions in question can be easily justified by other causes. The present study examined how group status and legitimizing ideologies predict perception of subtle racism. White (high status) and Black (low status) college students completed measures of legitimizing ideologies. Later, they watched a video clip on an ambiguous interracial conflict, recalled the clip, and judged whether the situation was attributable to racism. Findings showed that members of the low status groups and/or individuals who were less likely to endorse ideologies were more likely to perceive subtle racism. In addition, social dominance orientation indirectly predicted the perception of subtle racism through system justification legitimizing ideologies. Contrary to our hypothesis, group status did not change the relationship between ideologies and perceptions of subtle racism.

Keywordssubtle racism, legitimizing ideologies, race, group status, college students

1Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA2Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China3University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:Hsin-Ya Liao, Department of Educational Leadership, Sports Studies, and Educational/Counseling Psychology, Washington State University, P.O. Box 642136, Pullman, WA 99164-2136, USA. Email: [email protected]

625329 TCPXXX10.1177/0011000015625329The Counseling Psychologist</italic>Liao et al.research-article2016

The Division 17 logo denotes that this article is designated as a CE article. To purchase the

CE Test, please visit www.apa.org/ed/ce

at UNIV OF MIAMI on March 30, 2016tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

mailto:[email protected]

http://tcp.sagepub.com/

238 The Counseling Psychologist 44(2)

Within the past decades, research on psychology and racism has contributed to our understanding of racism and prejudice (D’Andrea & Heckman, 2008). In counseling psychology, scholars have found associations between racism and racism-related stress (Liang, Alvarez, Juang, & Liang, 2007; Spanierman & Heppner, 2004), psychological health (Pieterse & Carter, 2007), and cop-ing strategies (Alvarez & Juang, 2010), and have successfully translated these findings into multicultural training (Spanierman, Poteat, Wang, & Oh, 2008). With enormous efforts to help people understand and combat racism, the general public may feel that racial barriers have been overcome and race issues are much less frequent than they used to be (Helms, 2015). However, recent tragedies related to unfair law enforcement practices involving Black men and men of color (e.g., Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014) have prompted our nation to ponder how racism is currently presented and perceived, especially at the systematic and institutional levels. In the current study, we attempted to understand contemporary racism and explore its underlying mechanisms.

The major problem associated with contemporary racism, as suggested by Sue (2005), is that racism is usually perpetuated in normative and invisible forms and is generally outside of our conscious awareness. This type of rac-ism (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995), namely subtle racism, has posed a chal-lenge to the perceivers because (a) it is often difficult to discern, and (b) the actions in question can be easily justified by causes other than racism (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; Reid & Foels, 2010). Based on these two char-acteristics, we contended that perception of subtle racism is affected by the group status and beliefs held by the perceivers. Group status refers to the perceived prestige or power associated with one’s social group (Major et al., 2002), and beliefs refer to the widely adopted legitimizing ideologies used to justify existing social hierarchies and status quo (Jost & Banaji, 1994). Specifically, we tested whether (a) individuals from a high status group are less likely to perceive subtle racism than individuals from a low status group, and (b) whether the endorsement of legitimizing ideologies helps justify the actions in question, thus reducing individuals’ perceptions of subtle racism. It is important for counseling professionals and educators to understand that, despite proactive efforts in helping people understand and end racism, con-temporary racism has become more subtle and complex (Helms, 2015), espe-cially when it can be easily justified by beliefs that our existing social hierarchy is legitimate and just, and that there are no issues surrounding dis-crimination or racism (Jost & Banaji, 1994). Understanding the underlying mechanisms that constitute contemporary racism at both group and ideologi-cal levels can help counseling professionals examine complex issues like police brutality toward people of color.



Liao et al. 239

Subtle Racism

Pettigrew and Meertens (1995) suggested that contemporary racism can be expressed in blatant and subtle ways. Blatant racism in its traditional form has hot, close, and direct components (e.g., racial violence, racial slurs), whereas subtle racism in its modern form is cool, distant, and indirect (e.g., racial profil-ing, bad customer services). Recent research on racism showed that, although the blatant expression of racism has declined significantly, subtle and attribu-tionally ambiguous form of racism may still persist (Pettigrew, 1998). Research on aversive racism (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986), modern racism (McConahay, 1983), ambivalent racism (Katz & Haas, 1988), dissociation model of racism (Devine, 1989), and racial microaggressions (Sue et al., 2007) suggests that rac-ism is expressed more covertly when individuals do not act in overtly discrimi-natory ways. Unlike the identification of blatant types of racism, subtle forms of racism are difficult to detect and can be perceived and interpreted differently.

Human perception involves various cognitive capacities. In the current study, we explored perceptions of subtle racism in terms of how individuals attribute subtle or ambiguous interracial conflicts, or how they make sense of, or explain, these situations. Attribution has been the focus of study in human perception, motivation, and judgment (Weiner, 2006). Given the subtlety and ambiguity of the situation in our study, perceivers may be more likely to attri-bute the racial conflicts to causes other than racism. The attributions made by perceivers are also tied to the judgments or decisions they make regarding cer-tain situations. There are many ways to assess one’s judgment on a situation. A useful and less intrusive method of assessing individuals’ judgment is to ask them to think about a past occurrence that did not happen, or the “if only . . .” situation. This cognitive activity, called counterfactual judgment, is pervasive in everyday life and has influenced various cognitive activities, such as decision making and problem solving (Roese & Olson, 2014). At the initial stage, before attribution or judgment has been formed, perceivers actively decode situations. Given this premise, we can retrieve perceivers’ mental and cognitive presenta-tions at this early stage through strategies such as recall. Kashima (2000) has developed a useful recall methodology, story reproduction, to tap into individu-als’ early stage of perception immediately after they experience the event. Therefore, in the current study we investigated the perception of subtle racism through the domains of attribution, counterfactual judgment, and recall.

Group Status

Prior studies have provided support for the role of relative group status on individuals’ perceptions of subtle racism. Relative low or high group status is




based on the perceived prestige or power associated with one’s social group when two social groups are compared (Major et al., 2002). Compared with non-Latino White individuals, racial or ethnic minorities in the United States are widely perceived as less socially worthy and competent; thus, the perceived status associated with their racial or ethnic groups is considered relatively low (Major et al., 2002). Racial minorities have been more likely to perceive cer-tain situations as instances of racism than White individuals (Hartman, Hoogstraten, & Spruijt-Metz, 1994; Landrine & Klonoff, 1996; Reid, 2002). Additionally, Reid and Foels (2010) indicated that racial minorities, such as African Americans, have complex and defined cognitive representations of racism that are indexed by more conceptual dimensions. For example, Richeson and Shelton (2005) found that Black judges, relative to White judges, did better in detecting racial bias through a small segment of nonver-bal behavior. One possible reason for this between-group difference, which has been termed the vigilant hypothesis, is that members of low status groups encounter prejudice more frequently and are, therefore, more vigilant and sensitive to signals of prejudice than members of high status groups (Feldman Barrett & Swim, 1998; Mendoza-Denton, Downey, Purdie, Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002). The vigilant hypothesis is compatible with research indicating that cognitions which are repeatedly primed are more likely to be activated in ambiguous circumstances (Sedikides & Skowronski, 1991).

Legitimizing Ideologies

The difficulty in identifying subtle racist acts also rests on the idea that these behaviors in question are easily attributed to causes other than racism (Reid & Foels, 2010). This attributional ambiguity becomes more prominent among individuals who are more likely to endorse legitimizing ideologies. According to system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), legitimizing ideologies refer to certain widely adopted ideologies that justify the privilege and superior status of dominant social groups, thereby making the hierarchical and unequal relationships between social groups (e.g., racial groups) seemingly “legitimate” (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Tyler, 2006). When the system is perceived as just and legitimate, individuals are motivated to interpret their experiences in ways that justify existing conditions and are less likely to attribute responsibility to fac-tors such as discrimination, which would make the system seem unjust. Those who feel that the system is unjust and illegitimate are motivated to protect their sense of self and their feelings of self-worth, and are more likely to make system- based attributions such as discrimination (Major & Schmader, 2001).

Since 1990, research on legitimacy and psychology has begun to focus on the link between legitimizing ideologies and prejudice. It is believed that



Liao et al. 241

endorsing legitimizing ideologies renders the expression of prejudice as acceptable and justifiable (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). Endorsing legitimiz-ing ideologies also reduces the perception of discrimination when members of low status groups receive less favorable treatment than members of high status groups (Major et al., 2002). The association between legitimizing ide-ologies and lower perceptions of discrimination becomes even more acces-sible when prejudice is expressed subtly and when situations are attributionally ambiguous, as it is easier to switch attention away from group-based dispar-ity, to justify system inequality, and to attribute conditions to causes other than discrimination (e.g., ability; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009). When applying the preceding argument to racial conflicts, we speculated that endorsement of legitimizing ideologies would decrease perceptions or attri-butions of racism, especially in subtle and ambiguous contexts.

In the present study, we focused on three group-based and racially relevant legitimizing ideologies: belief in a just world (BJW), color-blind racial ideol-ogy (CBRI), and social dominance orientation (SDO). BJW is an ideology that refers to the belief that the social world is just and fair, and that individu-als get what they deserve and deserve what they get (Lerner, 1980). When applied to the group-based social hierarchy, this ideology can justify the priv-ileged social position of dominant groups and the disadvantaged position of subordinate groups (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). CBRI, an emerging legiti-mizing ideology in race relations, is defined as the denial, distortion, and/or minimization of race and racism. Neville, Spanierman, and Doan (2006) con-tended that CBRI is “a dominant racially based framework that individuals, groups, and systems consciously or unconsciously use to justify the racial status quo or to explain away racial inequalities in the United States” (p. 276). Both BJW and CBRI are based on the premise that the world, social structures, and social hierarchies are just and legitimate, and that there is no issue sur-rounding race and racial inequalities. Based on this premise, these legitimizing ideologies can be categorized into a group-based, social dominance ideological framework (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDO refers to the ideology that certain social groups are superior to other groups, therefore justifying the domination of superior groups over inferior groups. Individuals holding a social domina-tion ideology tolerate the maintenance of group-based systems of social hierar-chy, as well as of a variety of group-based oppression and conflicts, such as racism, classism, and sexism (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Taken together, although these three ideologies have their distinctive foci, they all share the same purpose of justifying group inequalities and societal status quo. By including these three ideologies in the present study, we intended to compare the extent to which these three ideologies directly predict individuals’ percep-tions of subtle racism.




Conceptualized as a general desire for unequal relations among social groups, SDO is perceived as an overarching framework to enact hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths, which in turn enforce hierarchy-enhancing social policies (Sidanius, Levin, Federico, & Pratto, 2001). This hypothesis was supported by empirical evidence that SDO had a positive indirect effect on hier-archy-enhancing policy (e.g., opposition to government effects to ensure fair treatment of ethnic minorities) through the mediation of hierarchy-enhancing myths (e.g., political conservatism; Sidanius et al., 2001). As SDO is also con-ceptualized as justification of the existing social hierarchy and status quo (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), it is plausible that SDO serves as a precursor for the system justification legitimizing ideologies (BJW and CBRI) by indirectly pre-dicting one’s denial of the existence of discrimination. In the context of subtle racism, individuals who are more likely to endorse SDO are also more likely to endorse system justification legitimizing ideologies, which, in turn, decreases individuals’ likelihood of noticing signs of racism, especially in subtle forms and ambiguous situations. In the current study, we sought to explore the indi-rect role of SDO on perception of subtle racism through the mediation variable of system justification legitimizing ideologies (BJW and CBRI).

Would the perceivers’ group statuses affect the strength of the relationship between ideologies and perceptions of subtle racism? According to the ideo-logical asymmetrical hypothesis (Sidanius et al., 2001), the association between legitimizing ideologies and group-relevant outcome variables is stron-ger among the high status or dominant groups than among the low status or subordinate groups. In other words, as members of high status groups are more motivated by their desire to maintain the existing social hierarchy and status quo, the legitimizing ideologies they hold are more relevant to the associated policy, attitudes, actions, and perceptions. This hypothesis was supported in prior studies (e.g., Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), including a study that found a positive relationship between support for the death penalty and SDO, both of which were more strongly endorsed within dominant groups than within subor-dinate groups. Based on this premise, we anticipated that the perceivers’ group status would change the relationship between legitimizing ideologies and per-ceptions of subtle racism. In particular, we expected that the association between legitimizing ideologies and perceptions of subtle racism would be stronger among the high status groups than among the low status groups.

Overview of the Current Study

The current study was conducted in a laboratory setting in which participants from a high status group (Whites) and from a low status group (Blacks) were exposed to a video clip of a subtle and ambiguous interracial situation where a White actor was the perpetrator and a Black actor was the victim. We assessed



Liao et al. 243

the perception of subtle racism with three specific indicators: (a) awareness of the race of the perpetrator, (b) attribution of events to racism, and (c) coun-terfactual judgment (e.g., how the White perpetrator would have behaved if the situation involved only White members). Although attributing an event to racism appears to be the most direct indicator of perceptions of racism, indi-rect measures such as participants’ subtle awareness of race and counterfac-tual judgment can help assess the scope of their perceptions. Two weeks prior to the laboratory session, a brief survey was administrated in class to assess participants’ endorsement of legitimizing ideologies. To examine the effect of group status and legitimizing ideologies on the participants’ perceptions of subtle racism, four hypotheses were proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Taken from the vigilant hypothesis (i.e., members belong-ing to low status groups encounter prejudice more frequently and are therefore more vigilant and sensitive to signs of prejudice than members belonging to high status groups; Feldman Barrett & Swim, 1998), we pre-dicted that individuals from a low status racial group (Blacks) would be more likely than individuals from a high status racial group (Whites) to perceive racism in an ambiguous interracial context.Hypothesis 2: Based on the premise that endorsement of legitimizing ide-ologies could render individuals less sensitive to subtle racism, we hypoth-esized that individuals who endorse legitimizing ideologies to a greater extent would be less likely to perceive subtle racism than individuals who endorse ideologies to a lesser extent, and vice versa. Three ideologies were used in the current study—BJW, CBRI, and SDO.Hypothesis 3: Taken from the ideological asymmetrical hypothesis (i.e., the relationship between legitimizing ideologies and group-relevant out-come variables is stronger among the high status or dominant groups than among the low status or subordinate groups; Sidanius et al., 2001), we expected that group status, a moderating variable, would change the rela-tionship between legitimizing ideologies and perceptions of subtle racism. In particular, we expected that the relationship between legitimizing ide-ologies and the perception of subtle racism would be stronger among the high status groups than among the low status groups.Hypothesis 4: Given that SDO is perceived as the precursor and overarch-ing framework for system justification legitimizing ideologies, we pre-dicted that SDO would indirectly predict perceptions of subtle racism through the mediating variable—system justification legitimizing ideolo-gies. In particular, we expected that individuals with higher SDO would be more likely to endorse higher system justification legitimizing ideologies, which would in turn decrease their likelihood of perceiving subtle racism.




Method

Participants

Among 132 undergraduates (75 women and 57 men) recruited from a large Midwestern university in the United States, 77 self-identified as White (51.9% male, M age = 19.64) and 55 self-identified as Black (30.9% male,1 M age = 20.36). The majority of participants were voluntarily recruited from the educational psychology participant pool where students from other racial groups were also recruited; these participants received course credits upon completion. To increase the number of Black participants, recruitment efforts were extended to Afro-American Studies courses and Black student organi-zations on campus. Based on the G*Power post hoc power analysis (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007), the current sample size (N = 132) was sufficient for the three follow-up analyses (correlation, multivariate analysis of variance [MANOVA], and analysis of variance [ANOVA]) as the esti-mated power sizes ranged from .81 to .99 when set at median effect size.2 This sample size was also considered adequate for conducting a structural equation modeling analysis (SEM), which was used to test the hypothesized models, as the ratio of number of people to estimated parameters of the following latent path models was between 5:1 and more3 (Bentler & Chou, 1987).

Design and Procedures

Participants were invited to participate in a two-phase study. In the first phase, they completed a brief survey that consisted of three measures of legit-imizing ideologies in the order of SDO, BJW, and CBRI, followed by a demo-graphic questionnaire. Two weeks later, they were invited to the laboratory cubicles and were instructed: “The study is about team work. We are interested in how people perceive the effectiveness of different work teams and leaders. We will show you a video clip that shows the dynamics of a work team.”

Each participant was shown a short video clip (2 min and 18 s) taken from the beginning part of Spike Lee’s movie Bamboozled (Kilik & Lee, 2000). The clip involved a Black male employee who was 30 min late for a morning staff meeting at a broadcasting company in New York City. Upon entering the conference room, the Black male employee was called and questioned about his lateness by a White male supervisor, who was commanding the team to conduct a new task. While everyone in the room was trying to figure out what the task was, an Asian female employee asked the supervisor “What do you want us to do?” The supervisor replied impatiently that “This is a dumb ques-tion,” yet responded favorably to another White male employee. In addition



Liao et al. 245

to the Black male and Asian female employees, the rest of the people in the meeting were White. The clip stopped when the meeting was dismissed and the Black male employee was called to meet with the White supervisor. This subtle interracial situation was chosen because it shares features of everyday situations commonly reported by African Americans as involving racism (Reid, 2002). Based on Reid’s (2002) procedures and findings that differenti-ated blatant and subtle types of racism, the subtlety and appropriateness of the video clip were reviewed and approved by four psychology faculty mem-bers who specialized in diversity and intergroup relations at the authors’ aca-demic institution. After watching the video clip, the participants were asked to recall the clip in their own words and evaluate the situation. Upon comple-tion of the second phase of the study, the participants were debriefed about the true intention of the study.

Measures of Legitimizing Ideologies

BJW. The seven-item Global Belief in a Just World Scale (GBJWS; Lipkus, 1991) uses a 6-point rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) with higher total scores indicating stronger endorsement of the belief that the social world is just and fair, and that “people get what they deserve.” The Cronbach’s alphas reported in previous studies ranged from .65 to .89 (mostly with mixed race, predominantly White student samples; Hellman, Muilenburg-Trevino, & Worley, 2008). Research has shown that BJW is associated with greater trust, higher internal locus of control, stronger endorsement of justice in various domains, and greater negativity towards victims of social and economic discrimination (with mixed race, predomi-nantly White student samples; Lerner, 2000; Lipkus, 1991). In the present study, the GBJWS yielded coefficient alphas of .87 for the total sample, and .82 and .88 for the White and Black samples.

CBRI. The 14-item Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale–Short Form (CoBRAS-SF; Neville, Low, Liao, Walters, & Landrum-Brown, 2007) is an abbreviated version of the original CoBRAS (Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000). The items are rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly dis-agree) to 6 (strongly agree) with higher scores indicating higher levels of color-blind racial attitudes (e.g., “Everyone who works hard, no matter what race they are, has an equal chance to become rich.”). The CoBRAS-SF has been found to relate to lower democratic attitudes (with a mixed racial stu-dent sample; Spanierman, Neville, Liao, Hammer, & Wang, 2008), lower social justice attitudes (with a mixed racial student sample; Lewis, Neville, & Spanierman, 2012), and lower openness to diversity issues (with a White




student sample; Neville, Poteat, Lewis, & Spanierman, 2014). The internal reliability of the CoBRAS-SF has ranged from α = .75 to α = .89 with White student samples (Neville et al., 2014; Spanierman, Neville, et al., 2008; Span-ierman, Poteat, et al., 2008) and from α = .75 to α = .79 with a combined Black and Latino student sample (Spanierman, Neville, et al., 2008). For the present study, the coefficient alphas were .85 for the total sample, and .78 and .84 for the White and Black samples.

SDO. The SDO (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) assesses indi-vidual differences in the extent to which individuals prefer a dominant hier-archy that fosters group inequalities (e.g., “In getting what your group wants, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups”). It consists of 16 statements on a 7-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating a stronger preference for social dominance. The SDO has been used widely in research and has been shown to be internally consistent across various college student racial groups (Cronbach’s αs ranged in .80s; Sidanius, Singh, Hetts, & Federico, 2000), including a Black student sample (α = .80; Neville, Coleman, Falconer, & Holmes, 2005). Scores on the SDO have yielded positive associations with beliefs in social and political ideologies and related policies (in mixed race, predominantly White student samples [Pratto et al., 1994], and in a Black student sample [Neville et al., 2005]), and negative associations with empa-thy, tolerance, communality, and altruism (in mixed race, predominantly White student samples [Pratto et al., 1994]). In the present study, the coeffi-cient alphas for the SDO were .92 for the total sample, and .91 and .89 for the White and Black samples.

Experimental Checks

Status difference. Instructions from Major et al. (2002) were adopted to check the assumed status difference between racial groups. Participants were asked the following:

There are many people who believe that different racial/ethnic groups enjoy different amounts of social status in this society. You may not believe this for yourself, but if you had to rate each of the following groups as people see them, how would you do so?

The participants then rated each of the following racial/pan-ethnic groups on a scale ranging from 1 (low status) to 7 (high status): White/European American, Black/African American, Asian/Asian American, Latino/Chicano,



Liao et al. 247

and Native American. In the present study, the ratings for White and Black groups were used in the analysis.

Difficulty in evaluating the interracial situation and frequency of encounter of the situation. The participants were asked to rate the difficulty in evaluating what was going on in the situation shown in the video clip on a 7-point scale rang-ing from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely), as well as the frequency at which they encounter this type of situation on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (once) to 7 (all the time).

Measures of Perceptions of Subtle Racism

Racial awareness. As story reproduction is considered a powerful methodol-ogy to investigate perceivers’ cognitive representations (Kashima, 2000), participants were instructed to recall and write down what they had seen from the video clip after viewing the video, a procedure called accidental recall. Based on their free recalls, we assessed whether participants encoded the races of the protagonists in the video, which is arguably a prerequisite for perceiving subtle racism. To this end, four undergraduate coders (two Afri-can American, one Asian American, and one European American) who were unaware of the hypotheses and purposes of the study were trained to code whether the participants stated the races of the two main characters (the White supervisor and the Black employee who was late) as well as those of the two supporting characters in the video (an Asian employee and a White employee). The four coders were divided into two pairs; each pair coded half of the written recalls. We obtained the interrater agreement by averaging the consistency of the codes derived from two pairs of coders. Cohen’s (1960) kappa, an index of interrater agreement, was high (93%). Disagreements were settled in a meeting among the coders and the first author.

An index of racial awareness was calculated according to whether the par-ticipants mentioned the races of the two main characters (White supervisor and Black employee, each scored two points) and the races of the two sup-porting characters (Asian and White employees attending the meeting, each scored one point). The races of the main characters were weighted double because we considered them more essential to measuring the participants’ perceptions of racism. As a result, the racial awareness scores range from 0 (the participant did not state the race of any of the characters) to 6 (the par-ticipant stated the race of all four characters).

Attribution to racism. After the accidental recall, participants were asked to rate the extent to which the boss’s behavior in the video clip can be explained




by a number of explanations on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). The explanations, adopted from Reid (2002), included chance happening, effective communication, racism, ignorance, responsible leader-ship, misunderstanding, rudeness, and insensitivity. For the purpose of this study, the ratings of racism were used to indicate perceptions of subtle rac-ism. As the context is subtle and ambiguous, other nonrace-related explana-tions from Reid’s measure were also explored.

Counterfactual judgment. Participants were asked to respond to one item that assessed how the White American male supervisor would have behaved if the group were composed of only White group members on a 7-point scale rang-ing from 1 (much worse) to 7 (much nicer). This item was used as an indirect indicator of a participant’s perception of subtle racism, such that a higher score reflected that the participant perceived poorer treatment toward Blacks than Whites, indicating greater perception of subtle racism.

Results

Experimental Checks

Perceived racial group status. A repeated-measures ANOVA on the perceived status of two racial groups (White and Black) revealed that these two racial groups differed in perceived social status, F(1, 131) = 447.26, ηp

2 = .77, p < .001. Consistent with our assumption, White individuals (M = 6.58, SD = 0.63) were perceived to have significantly higher status than Black individu-als (M = 3.94, SD = 1.3).

Difficulty in evaluating the interracial situation and frequency of encountering the situation. In general, participants had little difficulty evaluating the video (M = 2.22, SD = 1.15) and reported rarely encountering a similar situation (M = 2.64, SD = 1.15).

Descriptive Statistics

Means, standard deviations, score range, and intercorrelations among the three measures of legitimized ideologies (i.e., BJW, CBRI, and SDO) and three measures of perceptions of subtle racism (i.e., racial awareness, attribu-tion to racism, and counterfactual judgment) are shown in Table 1. There was only one missing datum in the measure of racial awareness, so we imputed the missing value using monotone method in SPSS. We checked the normal-ity of the study variables. According to DeCarlo (1997), an examination of



Liao et al. 249

the skewness (γ1) and kurtosis (γ2) with graphical examination is a typical method to examine the univariate normality of the variables (values more than 1 in γ1 and γ2 with significances suggest nonnormality). In addition, we included an omnibus normality test, the D’Agostino and Pearson’s K2 (D’Agostino & Pearson, 1973; see DeCarlo, 1997), to provide additional indices of normality (a significant K2 indicates nonnormality). The results indicated univariate normality for most of the variables, except racial aware-ness (γ1 = 1.36 and γ2 = 0.63; D’Agostino and Pearson’s K2 = 29.88, p < .001). After visual examination of the graphical display, it appears that scores of racial awareness presented a floor effect. As such, we recoded the scores of racial awareness from 0 to 1, from 1-3 to 2, and from 4-6 to 3. Although the distribution of the recoded scores was slightly toward univariate normal-ity (γ1 = 1.10 and γ2 = −0.35, no floor effect, D’Agostino and Pearson’s K2 = 20.73, p < .001), there were no differences in the pattern of results between the original and the recoded scores. Therefore, we used the original racial awareness scores for further analysis.

Group Status and Perceptions of Subtle Racism

The means and standard deviations of the three measures of perception of subtle racism among the high status group (White) and the low status group (Black) are shown in Table 2. We first conducted the MANOVA to discern whether there were group differences in perception of subtle racism (Hypothesis 1); results showed a significant group difference, Wilks’s Λ = .85, F(3, 127) = 7.3, ηp

2 = .15, p < .001. Follow-up multiple ANOVAs were

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Measures of Legitimizing Ideologies and Perceptions of Subtle Racism (N = 132)

MeasuresScore range M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. BJW 1-6 3.60 0.84 — 2. CBRI 1-6 2.83 0.77 .55** — 3. SDO 1-7 2.60 1.01 .38** .55** — 4. Racial awareness 0-6 1.17 1.79 −.27** −.45** −.19* — 5. Attribution to racism 1-7 3.62 1.78 −.24* −.49** −.22** .37** — 6. Counterfactual

judgment1-7 4.71 0.98 −.06 −.37** −.05 .19* .52** —

Note. BJW = belief in a just world; CBRI = color-blind racial ideology; SDO = social dominance orientation.*p < .05. **p < .01.




performed to test group differences for each measure of perception of subtle racism: (a) racial awareness, F(1, 129) = 18.34, p < .01, ηp

2 = .12; (b) attribu-tion to racism, F(1, 129) = 4.09, p < .05, ηp

2 = .03; and (c) counterfactual judgment, F(1, 129) = 6.23, p < .05, sηp

2 = .05. The results revealed that Black participants reported higher scores on all measures of perception of subtle racism than White participants. In general, the results support Hypothesis 1 that compared with members of the higher status group, mem-bers of the lower status racial group were (a) more aware of the racial ele-ments of the situation, (b) more likely to attribute the ambiguous interracial conflict to racism, and (c) more likely to report the White boss’s treatment toward the Black employee was unfair.

Given that the interracial conflict was subtle and ambiguous, we explored whether there was a group difference on nonrace-related attributions. We conducted a MANOVA and found no group differences on the remaining nonrace-related attributions, Wilks’s Λ = .96, F(7, 122) = 0.75, ηp

2 = .04, ns. The means and standard deviations of the nonrace-related attributions among the high status group and the low status group are shown in Table 2. The find-ings suggest that the perceivers’ group status does not affect how they attri-bute or explain the subtle and ambiguous scenario for reasons other than those related to race.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Measures of Perceptions of Subtle Racism and Nonrace-Related Attributions Among White and Black Participants

MeasuresScore range

White (n = 77)

Black (n = 55)

ηp2M SD M SD

Perception of subtle racism Racial awareness 0-6 0.63 1.22 1.90 2.17 .12** Attribution to racism 1-7 3.37 1.64 4.00 1.93 .03* Counterfactual judgment 1-7 4.54 0.72 4.96 1.22 .05*Nonrace-related attributions Chance happening 1-7 2.66 1.37 2.43 1.47 .007 Effective communication 1-7 2.67 1.47 2.93 1.79 .006 Ignorance 1-7 4.38 1.57 4.63 2.17 .004 Responsible leadership 1-7 2.92 1.68 3.07 1.84 .002 Misunderstanding 1-7 3.78 1.60 3.44 1.82 .009 Rudeness 1-7 6.17 0.87 6.02 1.25 .005 Insensitivity 1-7 6.05 1.09 5.94 1.47 .002

*p < .05. **p < .01.



Liao et al. 251

Effects of Legitimizing Ideologies on Perception of Subtle Racism

We conducted SEM to test a model with a latent variable and a categorical variable interaction (Hypothesis 2) and whether group status serves as a mod-erating variable in changing the relationship between legitimizing ideologies and perception of racism (Hypothesis 3). As shown in Figure 1, two latent variables were created to represent legitimizing ideologies and perception of subtle racism, and three observed indicators were chosen to represent each latent variable (BJW, CBRI, and SDO as indicators of legitimizing ideolo-gies; racial awareness, attribution to racism, and counterfactual judgment as indicators of perception of subtle racism). Group status was a dummy coded categorical variable. We followed Klein and Moosbrugger’s (2000) proce-dure to estimate the latent interaction effect of group status and legitimizing ideologies on perception of racism.

We used Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012) program’s maximum likelihood procedure to test the overall model fit and obtain the specific esti-mates (e.g., factor loadings and path loadings). As recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), several model-fit indices were used to test the overall model fit: comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), as they are fairly robust with respect to violations of normality. Based on the findings from a Monte Carlo simulation study, Hu and Bentler indicated that values of .06 or lower for RMSEA, .08 and lower for SRMR, and .95 or higher for CFI

Figure 1. Model with a latent variable and a categorical variable interaction.Note. The rectangles are observable indicators and the large ovals are the latent variables. The standardized factor loadings and unstandardized path loadings are shown next to the single-headed lines, and their standard errors are shown in parentheses. BJW = belief in a just world; CBRI = color-blind racial ideology; SDO = social dominance orientation; Interaction = interaction of group status and legitimizing ideologies.*p < .05. **p < .01.




suggest a relatively good fit; and values of .08 or lower for RMSEA, .10 or lower for SRMR, and .90 or higher for CFI suggest an acceptable fit.

Before employing the hypothesized model, we used a confirmatory factor analysis to examine the measurement model between the two latent variables and the observed indicators. The measurement model resulted in an accept-able fit, χ2(8) = 21.17, p < .01; CFI = .94; RMSEA = .11, 90% confidence interval (CI) = [.06, .17]; SRMR = .06. As shown in Figure 1, the standard-ized factor loadings of all six observed indicators were statistically signifi-cant at the .01 level, demonstrating that the latent variables were adequately measured by their respective indicators. Among three indicators of legitimiz-ing ideologies, CBRI appeared to be a stronger indicator (factor loading = 1) than the other two indicators (BJW and SDO; factor loading = 0.52 each). As for the indicators of perception of subtle racism, attribution to racism appeared to be a stronger indicator (factor loading = 0.76) than the other two indicators (racial awareness and counterfactual judgment; factor loadings = 0.50 and 0.61, respectively).

Based on Klein and Moosbrugger’s (2000) procedure,4 we examined the model with a latent variable and a categorical variable interaction in Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). In particular, we explored the main effects of group status and legitimizing ideologies on perception of subtle racism (Hypotheses 1 and 2) as well as the interaction effect of group status and legitimizing ideologies on perception of subtle racism (Hypothesis 3). As shown in Figure 1, group status was a dummy coded categorical observed variable, with higher values indicating members of relatively low status, and the interaction was a latent variable generated from the product of the latent legitimizing ideologies variable and the observed group status variable. As shown in Figure 1, there were significant main effects of legitimizing ideolo-gies and group status on perception of subtle racism (path loadings = 0.34 and −1.54, respectively, p < .05), supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2. Specifically, individuals from the low status group were more likely to perceive subtle racism than individuals in the high status group, and the endorsement of legit-imizing ideologies was associated with lower likelihood of perceiving subtle racism. As shown in Figure 1, the interaction effect on perception of subtle racism was not significant, suggesting that group status did not change the relationship between ideologies and perception of subtle racism. We further compared the constrained interaction model (constraining the interaction effect to zero) with the unconstrained interaction model by using −2 times log likelihood difference between two models as a test of chi-square difference.4 The comparison showed a nonsignificant chi-square difference, Δχ2(1) = 0.36, ns, indicating that there was no the interaction effect of group status and legitimizing ideologies on perception of subtle racism. We further compared



Liao et al. 253

the mean differences of three legitimizing ideologies across White and Black groups, and found that White participants endorsed higher levels of legitimiz-ing ideologies than the Black participants in general (Cohen’s d = 0.8 ~ 1.71, p < .01). Taken together, although White participants endorsed a higher level of legitimizing ideologies than their Black counterparts, the lack of interac-tions between legitimizing ideologies and group status on perception of sub-tle racism indicated that the effect of legitimizing ideologies on perception of racism remained similar across individuals in the two groups. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Correlational analyses were further conducted between indicators of legit-imizing ideologies and perception of subtle racism to explore the relative importance of legitimizing ideologies on perception of subtle racism. As shown in Table 1, results revealed that scores on the three ideologies were negatively correlated with scores on racial awareness and attribution to rac-ism (rs between −.19 and −.49, p < .05 and p < .01). In particular, in compari-son to the other two ideologies, the CBRI had the strongest correlations with racial awareness (r = −.45) and with attribution to racism (r = −.49). In terms of counterfactual judgment, only scores on the CBRI were negatively corre-lated with scores on counterfactual judgment (r = −.37, p < .01).

Next, we tested whether SDO would indirectly predict the perception of subtle racism through the mediating variable—system justification legitimiz-ing ideologies (Hypothesis 4). We used Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012) to conduct a latent path model with direct and indirect effects. As shown in Figure 2, three latent variables were created to represent SDO, sys-tem justification legitimizing ideologies, and perception of subtle racism. We used Little, Cunningham, Shahar, and Widaman’s (2002) parceling method to create three parcels as indicators of the latent SDO. Specifically, we assigned 16 SDO items to the respective parcels based on the factor loadings, with the aim to equalize the average loadings across parcels (Little et al., 2002). The factor loadings of the SDO items were generated from the principal axis fac-toring with one factor solution, assuming that SDO was an unidimensional construct (Pratto et al., 1994). The BJW and CBRI were used as indicators of the latent system justification legitimizing ideologies. Racial awareness, attribution to racism, and counterfactual judgment served as indicators of the latent perception of subtle racism.

Based on results of the confirmatory factor analysis, the measurement model between three latent variables and the observed indicators resulted in a good fit, χ2(17) = 38.17, p < .01, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .09 (90% CI = [.05, .13]), SRMR = .06. As shown in Figure 2, the standardized factor loadings of all eight observed indicators were statistically significant at the .01 level, demonstrating that the latent variables were adequately measured by their respective indicators.




The latent path model with direct and indirect effects (see Figure 2) also showed a relatively good fit, χ2(17) = 38.17, p < .01, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .09 (90% CI = [.05, .13]), SRMR = .06. We used Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012) to conduct an indirect test with 1,000 bootstrap samplings. The test revealed that SDO indirectly predicted perception of subtle racism through the mediating variable of system justification legitimizing ideolo-gies, with the indirect estimate as −.43 (95% biased corrected CI = [−.97, −.15]), p < .01. Figure 2 displays the standardized path loadings of the path model with direct and indirect effects. As shown in Figure 2, the effect of SDO on perception of subtle racism was fully mediated through system jus-tification legitimizing ideologies. To check the directionality of the indirect effect of SDO on perception of subtle racism from the cross-sectional data, we tested an alternative latent path model with indirect and direct effects by switching SDO and system justification legitimizing ideologies. In this model, we tested whether system justification legitimizing ideology indi-rectly predicted perception of subtle racism through the mediating variable of SDO. Although the overall fit of the alternative model was good, χ2(17) = 38.22, p < .01, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .10 (90% CI = [.06, .14]), SRMR = .06, the test of indirect effect with 1,000 bootstrap samplings was not significant, with an indirect estimate of .10 (95% biased corrected CI = [−.05, .68]), ns.

Figure 2. Latent path model with direct and indirect effects.Note. The rectangles are observable indicators, and the large ovals are the latent variables. The standardized factor loadings and path loadings are shown next to the single-headed lines, and their standard errors are shown in parentheses. SDO1, SDO2, and SDO3 are indicators of Social Dominance Orientation Parcel 1, Parcel 2, and Parcel 3. CBRI = color-blind racial ideology; BJW = belief in a just world.*p < .05. **p < .01.



Liao et al. 255

The findings from the original and alternative indirect and direct path models supported Hypothesis 4 that SDO, perceived as the precursor and overarch-ing framework for the system justification legitimizing ideologies, indirectly predicted perception of subtle racism. In particular, individuals with high level of SDO were less likely to perceive subtle racism, which was associated with having a higher likelihood of endorsing system justification legitimizing ideologies.

Discussion

Can group status and legitimizing ideologies predict perception of subtle rac-ism? We found that it can. At the group level, our results from the mean dif-ference test showed that Black participants perceived subtle racism more often than White participants. In particular, Blacks were more likely than Whites to notice the racial elements in the video, to attribute this ambiguous racial conflict to racism, and to perceive that the Black employee was treated poorly by his White boss. Taken together, we can infer that there are percep-tual differences in the initial decoding of racial cues and unfair treatment between members of the high and low status groups primed with the same video. These perceptual differences also relate to how individuals make attri-butions or reason through a subtle interracial situation, which requires more cognitive complexity.

At the individual level, results of the SEM and correlation analyses showed that endorsement of legitimizing ideologies was related to perception of sub-tle racism. Specifically, individuals who were less likely to endorse ideolo-gies were more likely to detect the racial cues from the subtle interracial conflict and attribute the situation to racism, and vice versa. In the current study, we further explored the relationships among three ideologies and found that SDO served as the precursor and overarching framework for the two system justification ideologies (CBRI and BJW), and indirectly pre-dicted perception of subtle racism (Sidanius et al., 2001; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Of the three ideologies examined, CBRI had the strongest association with perception of subtle racism. As CBRI is the legitimizing ideology that directly relates to race relations (Neville et al., 2006), the effect of CBRI on perception of subtle racism is expected to be stronger than the effect of the other two ideologies (i.e., SDO and BJW). Taken together, the three ideolo-gies operated coherently to predict perception of subtle racism, although each one had a differential effect.

Based on the previous findings, we may infer that the group difference on the perception of subtle racism may be attributed to participants’ level of legitimizing ideologies. Based on the legitimacy paradigm (Tyler, 2006), it is




speculated that low status members are more likely to perceive and attribute subtle interracial bias to racism because they are motivated to change the status quo and gain control over the valued resources, and vice versa. However, the vigilant hypothesis provides an alternative explanation for how low status members are more likely to perceive subtle racism. This hypothe-sis asserts that members of low status groups encounter prejudice more fre-quently and are more vigilant than members of high status groups to signs of prejudice and racism in social contexts (Sedikides & Skowronski, 1991). Both legitimacy and vigilant hypotheses provide explanations for why the perceiver’s group status affects the perception of subtle racism. Unfortunately, the current study did not provide direct empirical evidence that tests these hypotheses. We encourage further studies that test these explanations.

In the current study, we provided empirical evidence to support SDO as an overarching framework in enacting hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing ideolo-gies, which in turn influences the perceptions in justifying social hierarchies and status quo (e.g., denial of racism). Earlier, Sidanius et al. (2001) provided similar evidence regarding how the SDO affects hierarchy-enhancing policy via the enactment of hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths. As suggested in Sidanius and Pratto’s (1999) social dominance theory, oftentimes group-based oppression and conflicts (e.g., racism, sexism, classism) are the mani-festation of fundamental processes that maintain group-based systems of social hierarchy. Under this premise, people who are high in SDO would tend to act or believe in favor of the maintenance of a variety of group hierarchies (e.g., gender, age, class). Although the focus of the current study is on race relations, other group-based oppression and conflicts in relation to SDO may be of interest in future inquiries.

In the current study, we were also interested in the interplay between group status and legitimizing ideologies, and the perception of subtle racism. The extent of group- or individual-level perceptual differences of subtle rac-ism is relatively unknown in the field. According to system justification the-ory (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Tyler, 2006), the legitimizing ideologies have been adopted widely in society. Even though members of advantaged groups are generally more likely than members of disadvantaged groups to endorse these ideologies, there are still circumstances in which members of disadvan-taged groups are supportive of the status quo (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003). In fact, Jost et al. (2003) argued that disadvantaged members tend to have the need to reduce ideological dissonance and are more likely to defend, support, and justify existing social systems. For example, Jost et al. found that low-income individuals or African Americans were more likely to support limiting the rights of citizens to criticize the government. Also, Jost et al. found that low-income Latinos trust U.S. government officials more



Liao et al. 257

than others. On the contrary, Sidanius et al.’s (2001) ideological asymmetri-cal hypothesis states that members of high status groups are more motivated by their desire to maintain the existing social hierarchy and status quo, such that the relationship between legitimizing ideology and group-relevant out-come variables is stronger among the high status groups than among the low status groups. Our findings partially support the ideological asymmetrical hypothesis in that, although the high status group endorsed higher levels of legitimizing ideologies than the low status group, legitimizing ideologies had similar effects on the perception of subtle racism regardless of group status. Nevertheless, the current study was not directly designed to test the moderat-ing role of group status on the relationship between ideology and perception of subtle racism. Also, the extent to which group members identify with their ingroup is another possible factor that can affect the perception of subtle rac-ism. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) assumes that attitudes are mainly shaped by individuals’ membership in social groups and the structural context in which those groups are situated to maintain a positive self-esteem. As such, level of identification with an ingroup in the social structure is an important influence on attitude toward inequality and attribution toward dis-crimination. We encourage future endeavors to test this hypothesis.

To conclude, the present research took advantage of an ambiguous inter-racial situation to understand individuals’ perceptions of subtle racism. As we argued at the outset, the ambiguous situation gives individuals more leeway to justify and accept the unfair treatment and, therefore, is an ideal context to test the effects of legitimizing ideologies and group status. However, at the same time, the ambiguousness of the situation often makes it hard to objec-tively evaluate the real intent of the perpetrator, and thus, it is possible that the participants’ perceptions of subtle racism can be attributed to the rejection sensitivity of the low status group (Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002). That is, it is possible that members of the low status group are wary about being rejected, which in turn renders them vulnerable to misinterpret ambiguous interracial conflicts as motivated by racism. Interestingly, the fact that we still found greater endorsement of legitimizing ideologies predicts less attribution to racism suggests that holding legitimizing ideologies may lower the low status group’s sensitivity toward being rejected. Future research can test the link between legitimizing ideologies and status-based rejection sensitivity.

The present research has not examined the temporal development of indi-viduals’ perceptions of subtle racism. It is possible that individuals may take the perspective that protects their ingroup initially and subsequently adjust their perceptions according to their attitudes/ideologies. For instance, an indi-vidual from a low status group may be more vigilant toward subtle racism initially but explain away the subtle racism perceived subsequently if he or




she believes in legitimizing ideologies. As such, social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) may be correct in describing the initial stage of the percep-tion, whereas the system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994) may be correct in describing the subsequent adjustment stage. This idea can be tested in future research.

Limitations

The results of the present study need to be considered in light of several methodological limitations. The use of a video stimulus from a published movie, Bamboozled (Kilik & Lee, 2000), may affect the interpretation of the results. First, the movie seemed outdated for the college participants. It was unknown to what extent these college participants can relate to an interracial scenario that was published over a decade ago. Second, we wondered whether those who have seen the movie would evaluate the video clip differently than those who have not seen the movie. Although we minimized the potential cost by selecting the clip from the beginning part of the movie and ensuring that its content was irrelevant to the rest of the movie, it would still be prefer-able to create an ambiguous scenario to represent subtle racism in a future laboratory-type setting. In fact, it would be even more desirable to systemati-cally measure the ambiguity of the interracial scenario by manipulating the degree of ambiguity in the scenario.

Several sampling issues represent limitations of the study. First, different sampling procedures (course credit vs. recruitment and incentives) may have differentially affected who was included in the White and Black samples. Also, recruitment of students in Afro-American Studies courses and Black student organizations could have limited the external validity of the findings, given that these students may have been more interested and aware of subtle racism, and held more rallies and discussions on these issues. Second, the use of college students limits the generalizability of the study, as only approxi-mately 30% of individuals in the United States have obtained bachelor’s degrees (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2012). Third, it is important to note that some self-identified White Americans were in fact Latino or other racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Native American). Therefore, it is unclear to what extent White participants represented the high status group. Future studies may con-sider including self-evaluated group status. Fourth, the current low and high status samples restrict the generalizability of the results and may not repre-sent other low or high status groups. We recommend that this study be repli-cated with other racial or social groups in future studies. Finally, among the Black sample, the unequal proportion of men (30%) and women (70%) may affect the interpretation of the results. Although gender is not the focus of the



Liao et al. 259

study, it would be interesting to explore how various social identities inter-sect (e.g., race and gender) to predict the perception of racism, and whether other minority statuses that individuals hold may influence the extent to which they would detect prejudice. In fact, individuals’ relative group sta-tuses also relate to the regions or contexts in which they live (Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010). In other words, traditional percep-tions of who is in high versus low status may shift in certain regions of the United States. Future research may consider adopting a dynamic constructiv-ist approach on group status.

The use of certain analyses with cross-sectional data, particularly media-tion analysis, remains controversial. Although the current findings infer the directional effect from group status or ideologies to the perception of racism, we cannot generate casual conclusions. Despite its greater sophistication, analyses with cross-sectional data remain correlational in nature, and causal-ity is a conceptual rather than statistical issue. We encourage future replica-tions using longitudinal data or laboratory experiments.

Implications for the Counseling Profession

The current findings have broad implications for counseling practice, train-ing, and advocacy. At the individual level, the current findings inform us that members of low status groups perceive and experience more subtle racism, which may become a source of everyday stress (e.g., Liang et al., 2007) affecting both their psychological and physical health. At a broader level, in response to a series of tragedies relating to the violence of law enforcement officials toward Black men and men of color, our findings provide some insights for counseling professionals, mainly that, despite proactive efforts in helping people understand racism and end racism, racism is still pervasive (see Helms, 2015), especially when it is perpetrated in a normative, invisible form and can be easily justified by causes other than racism (e.g., enhanced law enforcement in the Black community). Our findings further suggest that people who endorse legitimizing ideologies are more likely to hold a belief that the existing social hierarchy is legitimate and just, and that there are no issues surrounding discrimination or racism. Although members of low group status are more likely to detect signs of racism, those who endorse legitimizing ideologies are less likely to identify and perceive social injustices and dis-crimination, even within low status groups. Given this premise, it is easy to discern that law enforcement personnel have a desire to maintain our societal hierarchy and the status quo of the justice system. As such, controversial incidents such as racial profiling or police shootings can be carried out in a




justifiable way without running a risk of being called an incident of discrimination.

In response to Ferguson’s tragedy, several counseling psychology leaders have called for the entire professional community to reflect on, and to take actions in combating such injustices as racism (Mobley, 2015). We can start advocating within our professional community by introducing the concept of legitimizing ideology in multicultural training modules in clinical agencies or professional training programs. The training can take various formats, includ-ing critical intergroup dialogues and discourses about what constitutes con-temporary racism and how the existing system and social hierarchies can be easily justified. We hope that our findings will help increase counselors’ or trainees’ multicultural competency and awareness. At a broader level, coun-seling professionals need to continue to take a social-action–oriented stance by reaching out to local communities and by informing the general public that racism is still pervasive, although it may be carried out in a different form than it was previously. These local communities include, but are not limited to, K-12 schools, higher education, corporate companies, media, and so on. With strong advocacy and training modules, we hope that our society will move toward a truly postracial era someday.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Christina Armstrong, Monica Ervin, Preeti Singh, Jenny Costel, and Alejandra Coronel for assistance with data collection, data entry, and data coding.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was partially supported by the Bureau of Education Research Dissertation Award at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign while Hsin-Ya Liao was a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Earlier preparation of this article was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health Postdoctoral Training Grant Award (Nr. PHS 2 T32 MH014257) to Hsin-Ya Liao.

Notes

1. In this study, almost 70% of Black students were women. We ran the t-test analyses to examine gender differences on study variables within this sample. Results showed significant gender differences on three variables—color-blind



Liao et al. 261

racial ideology (CBRI; Black men > Black women), attribution to racism (Black women > Black men), and racial awareness (Black women > Black men)—whereas no gender differences emerged for the remaining variables. The three significant gender differences appear interesting. However, we did not specify a prior prediction about gender differences, and the number of participants in the gender groups, especially Black men, was small. Therefore, we did not pro-vide interpretation for this finding. We welcome future studies to address this association.

2. We performed G*Power post hoc power analysis (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) to determine the appropriateness of the current sample size. When set at median effect size, the current sample size (132) was considered sufficient as the estimated power sizes were .94 for correlation analyses, .99 for MANOVA, and .81 for one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

3. In the current study, we conducted SEM to test two hypothesized models and related measurement models. The estimated parameters for these models were between 19 and 27, and the current sample size (N = 132) met the ratio criteria (between 5:1 and 10:1) for running SEM (Bentler & Chou, 1987).

4. The absolute fit indices (χ2, CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR) cannot be generated using Klein and Moosbrugger’s (2000) procedures in Mplus 7. Instead, the nested models can be compared using −2 times the log likelihood difference as a chi-square.

References

Alvarez, A. N., & Juang, L. P. (2010). Filipino Americans and racism: A multiple mediation model of coping. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 167-178. doi:10.1037/a0019091

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural equa-tion modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 78-117. doi:10.1177 /0049124187016001004

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104

Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414-446. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414

D’Agostino, R. B., & Pearson, E. S. (1973). Tests for departure from normality: Empirical results for the distributions of b2 and √b1. Biometrika, 60, 613-622.

D’Andrea, M., & Heckman, E. F. (2008). A 40-year review of multicultural counsel-ing outcome research: Outlining a future research agenda for the multicultural counseling movement. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 356-363.

DeCarlo, L. T. (1997). On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological Methods, 2, 292-307. doi:10.1073/1082-989X.2.3.292

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and con-trolled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5




Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3-20. doi:10.1177/1088868308326751

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sci-ences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

Feldman Barrett, L., & Swim, J. K. (1998). Appraisals of prejudice and discrimina-tion. In J. K. Swim, & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 11-36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio, & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hartman, C. A., Hoogstraten, J., & Spruijt-Metz, D. (1994). Disentangling dis-crimination: Victim characteristics as determinants of the perception of behav-ior as racist or sexist. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 567-579. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00600.x

Hellman, C. M., Muilenburg-Trevino, E. M., & Worley, J. A. (2008). The belief in a just world: An examination of reliability estimates across three measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 399-401. doi:10.1080/00223890802108238

Helms, J. E. (2015). Taking action against racism in a post-racism era: The ori-gins and almost demise of an idea. The Counseling Psychologist, 43, 138-145. doi:10/1177/0011000014564250

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.

Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13-36. doi:10.1002/ejsp.127

Kashima, Y. (2000). Maintaining cultural stereotypes in the serial reproduc-tion of narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 594-604. doi:10.1177/0146167200267007

Katz, J., & Haas, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value con-flict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905. doi:10.1037/0022 -3514.55.6.893

Kilik, J. (Producer), & Lee, S. (Writer/Director). (2000). Bamboozled [Motion pic-ture]. Los Angeles, CA: New Line Productions.

Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent inter-action effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65, 457-474. doi:10.1007 /BF02296338



Liao et al. 263

Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The schedule of racist events: A measure of racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 144-168. doi:10.1177/00957984960222002

Lerner, M. J. (1980). Belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Lerner, M. J. (2000). Just world belief. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 425-427). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lewis, J. A., Neville, H. A., & Spanierman, L. B. (2012). Examining the influence of campus diversity experiences and color-blind racial ideology on students’ social justice attitudes. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49, 119-136. doi:10.1515/jsarp-2012–6291

Liang, C. T. H., Alvarez, A. N., Juang, L. P., & Liang, M. X. (2007). The role of coping in the relationship between perceived racism and racism-related stress for Asian Americans: Gender difference. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 132-141. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.2.132

Lipkus, I. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a Global Belief in a Just World Scale and the exploratory analysis of the Multidimensional Belief in a Just World Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1171-1178. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)9008-L

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

Major, B., Gramzow, R., McCoy, S. K., Levin, S., Schmader, T., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legiti-mizing ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 269-282. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.269

Major, B., & Schmader, T. (2001). Legitimacy and the construal of social disadvan-tage. In J. T. Jost, & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 176-204). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McConahay, J. B. (1983). Modern racism and modern discrimination: The effects of race, racial attitudes, and context on simulated hiring decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 551-558. doi:10.1177/0146167283094004

Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis, A., & Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African American students’ college experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 896-918. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.896

Mobley, M. (2015, Winter). President’s report: Black lives matter (Society of Counseling Psychology Newsletter, Division 17). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www.div17.org/wp-content/uploads/SCP -newsletter-spring-2015.pdf

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.


http://www.div17.org/wp-content/uploads/SCP-newsletter-spring-2015.pdf

http://www.div17.org/wp-content/uploads/SCP-newsletter-spring-2015.pdf



Neville, H. A., Coleman, M. N., Falconer, J. W., & Holmes, D. (2005). Color-blind racial ideology and psychological false consciousness among African Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 31, 27-45. doi:10.1177/0095798404268287

Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R., & Browne, L. (2000). Construction and initial validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 59-70. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.59

Neville, H. A., Low, K. D., Liao, H.-Y., Walters, J. M., & Landrum-Brown, J. (2007). Color-blind racial ideology: Testing a context-based legitimizing ideology model. Unpublished manuscript.

Neville, H. A., Poteat, V. P., Lewis, J. A., & Spanierman, L. B. (2014). Changes in White college students’ color-blind racial ideology over 4 years: Do diversity experiences make a difference? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 179-190. doi:10.1037/a0035168

Neville, H. A., Spanierman, L. B., & Doan, B. T. (2006). Exploring the association between color-blind racial ideology and multicultural counseling competencies. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 275-290. doi:10.1037/1099 -9809.12.2.275

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Reactions toward the new minorities of Western Europe. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 77-103. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.77

Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57-75. doi:10.1002 /ejsp.2420250106

Pieterse, A. L., & Carter, R. T. (2007). An examination of the relationship between general life stress, racism-related stress, and psychological health among Black men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 101-109. doi:10.1037/0022 -0167.54.1.101

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763. doi:10.1037/0022 -3514.67.4.741

Reid, L. D. (2002). . . . But I know it when I see it: Experimental epistemology of rac-ism (Doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.

Reid, L. D., & Foels, R. (2010). Cognitive complexity and the perception of sub-tle racism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 291-301. doi:10.1080 /01973533.2010.519217

Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2005). Brief report: Thin slices of racial bias. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 75-86. doi:10.1007/s10919-004-0890-2

Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (2014). What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65, 237-251. doi:10.1037/a0019330

Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (1991). The law of cognitive structure activation. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 169-184. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0202_18



Liao et al. 265

Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Federico, M., & Pratto, F. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. In J. T. Jost & B. M. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 307-331). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sidanius, J., Singh, P., Hetts, J. J., & Federico, C. (2000). It’s not affirmative action, it’s Blacks: The continuing relevance of race in American politics. In S. O. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds.), Racialized politics: The debate about racism in America (pp. 191-235). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Spanierman, L. B., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Psychosocial Cost of Racism to White Scale (PCRW): Construction and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 249-262. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.249

Spanierman, L. B., Neville, H., Liao, H.-Y., Hammer, J. H., & Wang, Y.-F. (2008). Participation in formal and informal campus diversity experiences: Effects on students’ racial democratic beliefs. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 108-125. doi:10.1037/1938-8926.1.2.108

Spanierman, L. B., Poteat, V. P., Wang, Y.-F., & Oh, E. (2008). Psychosocial costs of racism to white counselors: Predicting various dimensions of multicul-tural counseling competence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 75-88. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.1.75

Sue, D. W. (2005). Racism and the conspiracy of silence: Presidential address. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 100-114. doi:10.1177/0011000004270686

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Buccerri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62, 271-286. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitima-tion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400. doi:10.1146/annurev .psych.57.102904.190038

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2012). Bachelor’s degree attainment tops 30 percent for the first time, Census Bureau reports [Online Newsroom Newsroom Archive]. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/education /cb12-33.html

Weiner, B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attribu-tional approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Author Biographies

Hsin-Ya Liao is an assistant professor of counseling psychology at Washington State University. She received her PhD in counseling psychology from the University of


https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/education/cb12-33.html

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/education/cb12-33.html



Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Her research interests include intergroup relations, diversity, and cross-cultural applications of vocational interest and help-seeking.

Ying-yi Hong is Choh-Ming Li Professor of Marketing at The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). She received her PhD from Columbia University. Her research focuses on culture and cognition, multicultural identity and intergroup relations. Before joining CUHK, she taught at Nanyang Technological University (Singapore), University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign (USA), and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

James Rounds is a professor in the departments of Educational Psychology and Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. He earned his PhD at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. His research field is the psychology of work.



perception of subtle racism - american psychological ... · in addition, social dominance ......

Documents