Abstract
Prior studies have found that symbolic racism and negative African-American stereotypes are linked to public preferences for punitive criminal justice policy. But prior studies have mostly focused attention on White respondents and have not adequately examined whether the effects of symbolic racism and negative African American stereotypes are the same across race and ethnicity. This study used the 2000 American National Election Study data to fill this gap in the empirical literature. The study found that the effects of symbolic racism were broad and generally impact Whites, African-Americans, and members of other races/ethnicities the same. The effects of negative African-American stereotype were more limited. This variable predicted punishment policy preference for members of other races/ethnicities and there were significant differences in how stereotypes impacted policy preferences across race and ethnicity. Implications for theory are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Notes
“Old fashioned racism” generally takes the form of belief in biological inferiority of minority groups. The concept of “old fashioned racism” is typically measured using survey items that ask about views toward interracial marriage, segregation of neighborhoods, allowing minority citizens to run for election to high offices, and whether minority individuals lack certain inborn abilities (Tarman and Sears 2005).
While many scholars do suggest that “old fashioned racism” has been replaced by a new form of racism, there is some evidence that “old fashioned racism” has not completely been eliminated from the subconscious of American citizens. Goff et al. (2008) recently found that in a sample of students, there was an implicit link between Blacks and apes and that this link was used to justify punitive responses toward Black suspects.
The researchers interviewed 1,006 respondents face-to-face in the pre-election phase and re-interviewed 698 respondents face-to-face in the post-election phase. The researchers also interviewed 801 respondents via phone in the pre-election phase and 862 respondents via phone in the post-election phase. There were more respondents interviewed by phone in the post-election stage than in the pre-election stage because two segment areas of the face-to-face interviews in the pre-election stage were phone interviewed in the post-election stage.
The researchers used the technique of branching to create a summary measure on support for either punishment or addressing the social causes of crime. The technique of branching is designed to attain specificity in respondent preferences and to reduce non-responses that result in missing data. Respondents were first asked what the best approach to addressing the crime problem was: 1) to catch, convict, and punish criminals; 2) to address the social problems that cause crime; or 3) to do something in between. Respondents that chose the “catch, convict, and punish” option were asked whether it is “somewhat better” or “much better” to “catch, convict, and punish” than “address the social problems.” The respondents who chose the “address the social problems” option from the first question were then asked whether it is “somewhat better” or “much better” to “address the social problems” than it is to “catch, convict, and punish” offenders. The respondents who originally chose the “something in between” option were then asked what they would choose if forced to choose from addressing social problems or catching and punishing offenders. From this branching technique, a seven-point summary item was created: 1 = much better to address social problems; 2 = somewhat better to address social problems; 3 = neither but slightly favor addressing social problems; 4 = somewhere in between; 5 = neither but slightly favor punishment; 6 = somewhat better to punish; and 7 = much better to punish.
The study by Anna King identified respondents in a national sample who were at the extreme ends of a distribution on a punitiveness/forgiveness scale. She noted that, “In looking at the ends of the distribution, we see ‘exemplars’ of the phenomena. Attitudes that exist ‘in the middle’ represent the majority of attitudes, but are patterned on what can be thought of as the ‘original models’ located at the ends of the distribution. As such, they are the most likely to provide a clear demonstration of the underlying psychological processes that might underlie attitudes to punishment.” In the Buckler et al. study, the authors acknowledged that in their sample, race of the respondent was not a significant predictor of support for capital punishment when their analysis used a support/oppose dichotomy; but when they created a variable that put those respondents that “strongly support” capital punishment against all others in the distribution, they found a strong, statistically significant racial divide in support for capital punishment.
The Punishment Policy Preference variable was created by collapsing respondents who somewhat favored punishment and thought that is was much better to punish. This collapsed group was coded as a value of one and all other respondents were coded as a value of zero.
The Progressive Policy Preference variable was created by collapsing respondents who somewhat favored addressing social problems and who thought it was much better to address social problems. This collapsed group was coded as a value of one and all other respondents were coded as a value of zero.
Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the following: 1) Blacks should overcome prejudice without any favors; and 2) if Blacks would try harder they would be well off (1 = disagree strongly; 2 = disagree somewhat; 3 = neither agree or disagree; 4 = agree somewhat; 5 = agree strongly). Respondents were also asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statements: 3) Blacks have gotten less than they deserve; and 4) past discrimination impacts Blacks today (1 = agree strongly; 2 = agree somewhat; 3 = neither agree or disagree; 4 = disagree somewhat; 5 = disagree strongly). Lastly, respondents were asked about their affective perception of the influence of African-Americans in society (1 = too little influence; 2 = just about the right amount; 3 = too much influence).
Respondents were asked to rank their perceptions of White people on a seven-point scale along three different dimensions: lazy or hardworking (1 = lazy; 7 = hardworking); unintelligent or intelligent (1 = unintelligent; 7 = intelligent); and untrustworthy or trustworthy (1 = untrustworthy; 7 = untrustworthy). Respondents were also asked to rate African-Americans along the same three dimensions using the same measurements. The three White qualities measures were summed to create a “White qualities” scale (α = .778) and the three African-American qualities measures were summed to create an “African-American qualities” scale (α = .805). For each respondent, the value for the “African-American qualities” scale was subtracted from the value for the “White qualities” scale to create the African American stereotype variable.
Respondents were asked which mannerisms is better for children to have: 1) independence or respect for elders (1 = independence; 2 = both; 3 = respect for elders); 2) self-reliance or obedience (1 = self-reliance; 2 = both; 3 = obedience); 3) curiosity or good manners (1 = curiosity; 2 = both; 3 = good manners); and 4) considerate or well-behaved (1 = considerate; 2 = both; 3 = well-behaved).
Respondents were asked about their agreement/disagreement with the following statements: 1) society needs to give everyone equal opportunities; 2) we don’t give everyone equal chances; and 3) we would have fewer problems if people were treated equally (1 = disagree strongly; 2 = disagree somewhat; 3 = neither agree or disagree; 4 = agree somewhat; 5 = agree strongly). Respondents were also asked their level of agreement/disagreement with the following statements: 4) we have pushed equal rights too far; 5) we would be better off if we worried less about equal rights; and 6) it is OK if some people have more chances than others (1 = agree strongly; 2 = agree somewhat; 3 = neither agree or disagree; 4 = disagree somewhat; 5 = disagree strongly).
Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: 1) new morals are causing social breakdown; and 2) there would be less problems if we emphasized traditional family ties (1 = disagree strongly; 2 = disagree somewhat; 3 = neither agree or disagree; 4 = agree somewhat; 5 = agree strongly). The respondents were also asked whether they agreed or disagreed with these statements: 3) we should adjust our views to changes in moral behavior; and 4) we should tolerate other’s morality (1 = agree strongly; 2 = agree somewhat; 3 = neither agree or disagree; 4 = disagree somewhat; 5 = disagree strongly).
Respondents were asked whether we need less government or there was more things the government should do (1 = more things the government should be doing; 2 = the less government the better), whether we need a strong government to handle complex problems or the free market can handle problems (1 = need a strong government to handle complex problems; 2 = the free market can handle without government), and whether the reason that government is big is because problems are bigger or because government is meddlesome and involved in things it should not be involved in (1 = problems are bigger; 2 = government is meddlesome).
References
Barkan, S. E., & Cohn, S. F. (2005). Why whites favor spending more money to fight crime: The role of racial prejudice. Social Problems, 52, 300–314.
Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority group relations. New York: Wiley.
Buckler, K., Davila, M., & Salinas, P. (Forthcoming). Racial differences in public support for the death penalty: Can racist sentiment and core values explain the racial divide? American Journal of Criminal Justice.
Dixon, T. L. (2006). Psychological reactions to crime news portrayals of Black criminals: Understanding the moderating roles of prior news viewing and stereotype endorsement. Communication Monographs, 73, 162–187.
Dixon, T. L., & Maddox, K. B. (2005). Skin tone, crime news, and social reality judgments: Priming the stereotype of the dark and dangerous black criminal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1555–1570.
Feagin, J. R. (2006). Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression. NY: Routledge.
Garza, C. L. (2007, August 19). Latino growth doesn’t bring power; Hispanics still lack political clout — Despite rallying cry. Houston Chronicle, Metfront B1.
Goff, P. A., Eberhardt, J. L., Williams, M. J., & Jackson, M. C. (2008). Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 292–306.
Green, E. G. T., Staerkle, C., & Sears, D. O. (2006). Symbolic racism and Whites’ attitudes towards punitive and preventive crime policies. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 435–454.
Hagan, J., Shedd, C., & Payne, M. R. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and youth perceptions of injustice. American Sociological Review, 70, 381–407.
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414–431.
King, A. (2008). Keeping a safe distance: Individualism and the less punitive public. British Journal of Criminology, 48, 190–208.
Lee, R. D., & Rasinski, K. A. (2006). Five grams of coke: Racism, moralism, and White public opinion on sanctions for first time possession. International Journal of Drug Policy, 17, 183–191.
Merton, R., & Rossi, A. (1957). Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In R. Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Peffley, M., & Hurwitz, J. (2002). The racial components of "race-neutral" crime policy attitudes. Political Psychology, 23, 59–75.
Peffley, M., & Hurwitz, J. (2007). Persuasion and resistance: Race and the death penalty in America. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 996–1012.
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth century England. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. Katz, & D. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 53–84). New York: Plenum Press.
Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 259–275.
Soss, J., Langbein, L., & Metelko, A. R. (2003). Why do white Americans support the death penalty? Journal of Politics, 65, 397–412.
Suro, R. (2005, June 26). Latino power?; It will take time for the population boom to translate. Washington Post, Outlook B1.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel, & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tarman, C., & Sears, D. O. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of symbolic racism. Journal of Politics, 67, 731–761.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The racial divide in support for the death penalty: Does White racism matter? Social Forces, 85, 1281–1301.
Watts-Jones, D. (2002). Healing internalized racism: The role of within-group sanctuary among people of African decent. Family Process, 41, 591–602.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buckler, K., Wilson, S. & Salinas, P.R. Public Support for Punishment and Progressive Criminal Justice Policy Preferences: The Role of Symbolic Racism and Negative Racial Stereotype. Am J Crim Just 34, 238–252 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9056-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9056-9
Keywords
- Symbolic racism
- Stereotypes
- Resource competition
- Internalized racism
- Public opinion
- Crime policy