Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this article is to re-evaluate the independent impact of urban and regional residency on racial tolerance from 1972 to 2006. Recent scholarship has questioned the extent to which the effects of these subcultures reflect general toleration and/or more deep-seated underlying racial attitudes. Using data collected by the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, this article builds upon past research by including different measures of racial tolerance borrowed from the contemporary work of Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, and Krysan to reassess the impact of these subcultures over a four-decade period. Findings indicate that Southerners remain more obdurate regardless of how racial tolerance is measured and this effect appears to be persisting across the four-decade period. The impact of urbanism, on the other hand, and its effect across time is much more variable and dependent on how racial tolerance is measured. This article further discusses these findings in the framework of the classical theories of Louis Wirth and Samuel Stouffer.

On the heels of recent police shootings of an unarmed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina, and the death of Freddy Gray in Baltimore, Maryland, that stoked racial tensions, this article examines how beliefs about race and racial inequality influence whites' attitudes toward the use of force by the police since the mid‐1980s. Our main dependent measure is a composite index ("Police Force Index") constructed from four survey items from the 1986–2012 National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey (GSS). Results show that (1) beliefs about race do indeed significantly predict whites' attitudes toward police use of force, and more importantly, (2) this effect has remained constant since the mid‐1980s. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of these findings and suggestions for future research.

The purpose of this paper is to move research on racial attitudes away from studying intraindividual attitudes toward studying broader structural factors that contribute to the attitudes and feelings of U.S. citizens. We focus on how interest groups and elite actors play a role in shaping the discourse on immigrants and the immigration debate in the twenty-first century. Herbert Blumer posed that over time, the dominant group develops certain feelings toward subordinate group members and that these feelings form the basis of racial prejudice. These feelings include notions of superiority, the alienation of other groups, proprietary claims over valued resources, and finally, a feeling that resources are threatened. While not dismissing the importance of interpersonal interactions, Blumer posed that elite entities within the dominant group play prominent roles in producing and managing these feelings among the masses because they have access to the public ear. To assess how the elite attempt to manage feelings toward immigration, we use qualitative data from 33 amicus briefs submitted in support of Arizona's SB 1070 law in the Arizona v. United States case. Findings reveal that each of the feelings was prominently represented in all briefs, which supports the notion that elite entities use arguments that promote feelings Blumer associated with racial prejudice.

ObjectivesThe purpose of this project is to assess (1) presence of anger toward Asian Americans "taking jobs," and (2) whether stereotypes, feelings of competitive threat, and principles of equality predict increased presence of anger.MethodsWe used an experimental list survey of 416 participants, which reduces social desirability effects compared to traditional surveys.ResultsFindings show feelings of group competition and threat were strong predictors of presence of anger toward Asian Americans taking jobs. This anger was not associated with stereotypes as suggested by past research.ConclusionsThis finding supports Blumer's Group Position Theory, which argues that racial animosity is rooted in concerns that out‐groups are vying for resources claimed by one's own group.

Objective. The purpose of this article is to assess over-time trends in the interactive effects of gender and race on attitudes toward the changing roles of women in U.S. society. Methods. This article uses data from the 1974-2006 General Social Survey. Gender-role attitudes are measured using two composite indices of traditionalism. Results. We find black females tend to hold less traditional gender-role attitudes than their black male, white male, and white female counterparts. Black and white males tend to hold similar attitudes toward women entering politics, but differ significantly in their attitudes toward women working outside the home and its impact on children. Assessing over-time trends, we find the difference between black females and the other social groups to be generally diminishing. This convergence is more pronounced for white and black females. The difference in attitudes toward women entering politics between black females and white males, on the other hand, appears to be maintaining over time. Conclusions. These findings support the idea that the labor force participation for women may have provided the groundwork for the evolution of attitudes for men and women. As white women in particular increase participation in the workforce, ideologies regarding the place of women in U.S. society have shifted. Adapted from the source document.

The anti-politically correct (PC) stance has been a key defensive position held by many conservative Americans for more than three decades. This position holds that being forced to be politically correct hinders open dialogue and debate on important yet sensitive issues, especially those around race and racism. However, scholars have questioned this anti-PC orientation and tied it to political orientation and racism. One caveat that stands as the basis of this paper is the role of education in moderating the impact of racial emotions on various outcomes. While some scholars, such as Seymour Lipset, highlight the liberalizing impact of education, others question such impact. Accordingly, this research examines how educational attainment, racial resentment, and White guilt concerning racial injustice interact to impact the likelihood of White Americans taking an anti-PC stance. Our data is drawn from the American National Election Study 2016 pilot survey. In line with past research, we find that racial resentment and White guilt indeed predict views toward political correctness; however, we find educational attainment does not change the effect of these variables on views toward political correctness. We discuss the importance of these findings in relation to prominent social theories on race and social dominance.

Asians are now the fastest growing racial minority group in the United States. Nearly 18 million Asians and Asian Americans currently reside in the country. Approximately 44 million African Americans also live in the United States. To improve their limited social, economic, and political clout, Asians and Asian Americans in the United States (AAAUS) could benefit from the formation of mutually beneficial political alliances with African Americans, another historically marginalized racial group. However, complicated relational dynamics between African Americans and AAAUS may drastically reduce the chances of political unity. Using the 2008 National Asian American Survey, the authors examine the effects of three factors—group consciousness, linked fate, and experiences of discrimination—on perceptions of political commonality with African Americans among AAAUS. The findings show that group consciousness and linked fate positively and strongly increase the odds of perceptions of political commonality with African Americans; however, experiences of discrimination do not. The results suggest that the cultivation of mutually beneficial political alliances between African Americans and AAAUS would first require AAAUS to develop a heightened sense of group consciousness and linked fate. The potential impact of these factors on future political alliances between both groups are discussed, as are the limitations of this study.

Peer breastmilk sharing—the unregulated gifting of human milk for the purpose of feeding a child—is a growing practice in Western societies despite official warnings against it. Milk sharing occurs in a context of breastfeeding promotion, and cultural expectations that mothers take individual responsibility for their children's health, weigh expert recommendations on childrearing, and engage in responsible consumerism to minimize children's toxic exposure. This study analyzes the perspectives of parents who milk‐share within this broader context. Data consist of a survey asking 392 parents who milk‐share to evaluate the healthiness of mothers' own milk, peer‐shared milk, and formula, and explain their evaluations. Participants rated mothers' breastmilk as healthiest, followed closely by peer‐shared milk, and infant formula as least healthy. They drew on scientific discourses regarding the health benefits of breastmilk, and natural versus artificial dichotomies to construct formula as unhealthy based on its synthetic makeup. Engaging with scientific and neoliberal motherhood in their constructions, peer‐shared breastmilk emerged as a healthier option than formula when mothers' own milk was unavailable.