Explicit and Implicit Perceptions of Non-Whiteness and

The study examines how explicit and implicit perceptions of people of color are related to interracial interaction reluctance in the United States. A total of 169 college students completed a self-administered survey. The present analysis focuses on responses of 82 White (Caucasian) and 37 African American participants. Thirty-one of the 119 participants also took the ‘Black and White’ Implicit Association Test (IAT, Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) in which they were asked to make prompt associations between White/Black persons and descriptive words within short time limits. Explicit perceptions of non-Whiteness were measured in three dimensions: distinctness, inferiority, and incompatibility. The results indicated that implicit, automatic preferences for Blacks among African American participants were positively associated with their reluctance to interact with Whites, whereas the association between White participants' preferences for Whites and interracial interaction reluctance failed to reach statistical significance. As for explicit perception measures, regression results showed that perceived non-White distinctness and incompatibility were significant predictors for interracial interaction reluctance among Whites, whereas perceived non-White inferiority and incompatibility were positive indicators of the reluctance among Blacks. C. Mo Bahk & Fred E. Jandt 315 In the 1970s, Henri Tajfel and John Turner made an undisputed contribution to our understanding of inter-group prejudice through social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The theory contends that given even the slenderest of criteria such as nationality or skin color, we naturally split people into two groups: an "in-group" and an "out-group." Based, in part, on the desire to think highly of ourselves, we tend to think more highly of people in the in-group than those in the out-group---a belief anchored only in perceived group identity. The disparity hypothesis (Bahk, Woesti, & Cushing, 2003) suggests that the greater the perceived disparity towards out-group members, the lower the inclination to get involved in inter-group interactions with them. It is possible that in an effort to corroborate the in-groupness among those who share certain perceptions of prestigious social identity, people may distance themselves as much as possible from those who they think seem unlikely to belong to their in-group. Notably, this distancing behavior that has been manifested, and researched, more conspicuously in residential, educational, and recreational settings is often based on skin color, or race----a notion that has already begun to be discarded by intellectuals as a false conceptualization that misleads individuals in their perception of others (Adelman & Gocker, 2007; Montagu, 1942; Zack, 1993). The contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) proposes that under right conditions, contact between members of different groups will reduce prejudice between the groups and increase positive and tolerant inter-group attitudes. Although there have been contradictory findings on specific conditions in which contact enhances inter-group understanding (see for review, Pettigrew, 1998), the contact hypothesis has continuously gained popularity among social and behavioral researchers, mainly because of its simplicity and its underlying ideological implications (Connolly, 2000). In most research on the contact hypothesis, however, inter-group contact has been studied as an antecedent condition for generating various social effects such as ameliorating inter-group relations. The present study deals with inter-group contact as an outcome variable. In particular, the study focuses on how inter-group perceptions of disparity increase or decrease intergroup contact. Avoidance or reduction in inter-group contact can result from an individual's reluctance to interact with out-group members, categorized based on perceived social identity. More specifically, the present investigation is intended to examine how perceptions of non-Whiteness are related to interracial interaction reluctance among Whites and non-Whites in the United States. Interracial Interaction Reluctance While the construct communication apprehension is now commonly regarded as a trait (McCroskey and Beatty, 1998), McCroskey and Richmond (1998) acknowledge that the willingness-to-communicate (WTC) scale may be subject to possible cultural variations. Neuliep and McCroskey (1997) argued that due to relatively higher levels of novelty, uncertainty, unfamiliarity, and dissimilarity, the contexts of interethnic and intercultural communication would likely engender anxiety among some individuals involved. Later, Toale and McCroskey (2001) reported that ethnocentrism (negatively judging another culture by the standards of one's own culture) is positively related to interethnic communication apprehension. That is, the higher the level of ethnocentrism, the higher the level of interethnic communication apprehension. In another series of studies, Bahk and Jandt (2003a, 2004) have shown that Whites and non-Whites have Interaction Reluctance 316 different perceptions of social identity based on skin color of themselves and others and that these perceptions are to some extent associated with interracial communication anxiety. For example, it was empirically demonstrated that non-White individuals tend to have a higher awareness of skin color than do Whites and that among some non-Whites the perception of Whiteness is positively related to the level of interracial interaction anxiety (Bahk & Jandt, 2003a, 2004). As an application of earlier conceptualizations of communication avoidance such as "reticence" (Phillips, 1968), "unwillingness to communicate" (Burgoon, 1976), and "willingness to communicate" (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987) to inter-group contexts, the present study introduces the construct of "intergroup interaction reluctance," defined as "inclination not to interact with members of an out-group." The study focuses on examining the relationship between inter-group perceptions and inter-group interaction reluctance. In particular, drawing upon the disparity hypothesis (Bahk, Woesti, & Cushing, 2003), we predict that the level of perceived disparity is positively associated with interaction reluctance between Whites and non-Whites in U.S. society. Prior studies using the measures of interracial perceptions and attitudes have mostly relied on explicit, self-report responses. In the field of psychology, however, there have been persistent attempts to measure inter-group attitudes in implicit ways. Psychologist Anthony Greenwald and his colleagues, for example, developed what they call the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to measure people's implicit attitudes towards various socially identifiable groups, typically based on such characteristics as race, sex, and age (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Implicit Racial Attitudes Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998) define explicit attitudes and beliefs as those that are directly expressed or publicly stated, such as self-report questionnaires. Implicit attitudes and beliefs, on the other hand, refer to attitudes that are hidden from public view and even from conscious awareness or conscious control (Greenwald and Banaji, 1995). Explicit and implicit attitudes may not be the same. One explanation is that a person may be unwilling to accurately report some attitudes. A second explanation for explicit-implicit disagreement is that a person may be unable to accurately report an attitude. These two explanations are similar to the Johari window: hiding something from others and something being hidden from the person himself/herself. Implicit and explicit attitude measures should agree when people are both aware of and willing to report their associations. Skin color was one of the first topics investigated by the developers of the IAT. Users see faces of Blacks and Whites and words that have either a good or bad connotation. Faces were used under the assumption that faces do not require the knowledge of a language to make a judgment. Categorization is made using the "E" or "I" key on the keyboard. The test is divided into congruent and non-congruent portions. For example, in the stereotype congruent portion a common key is used for "White and Good" or "Black and Bad" and in the stereotype non-congruent portion a common key is used for "White and Bad" or "Black and Good." Generally, researchers using the IAT find that it is easier for subjects of one group to pair images of their group with pleasant words—and easier to pair the opposite group with unpleasant imagery. It is argued that this reveals underlying biases. Past research has found that White Americans on average have positive IAT scores on the IAT-Race task, even when they are totally C. Mo Bahk & Fred E. Jandt 317 unprejudiced in their overt attitudes and behavior. Racial prejudice as indexed by the IAT would likely be associated with interracial interaction reluctance. Although not empirically evidenced, the racism literature has persistently discoursed on practices of segregation and separation in social activities and gatherings between White and nonWhite groups in U.S. society. As Toale and McCroskey (2001) suggested, individuals negatively judging members of another group by the standards of one's own group are likely to exhibit higher levels of inter-group interaction reluctance. Hence, the following hypothesis is formulated for empirical testing: H1: Implicit racial preferences for Whites are positively related to interracial interaction reluctance. Explicit Perceptions of Non-Whiteness Bahk and Jandt (2003a, 2004) developed an instrument, called "Being White in America Scale" (BWAS), to measure people's perceptions of White racial dominance in the U.S. The instrument deals with whether Whites are perceived to be more dominant, superior, and privileged than non-Whites in U.S. society. The present study, however, focuses on the perceptions of non-Whiteness as influencing the level of interracial interaction reluctance among both Whites and non-Whites. Of particular concern is the relationship between the perception of non-White racial disparity and the level of interracial interaction reluctance. Perceived racial (non-White) disparity is regarded as consisting of three dimensions: distinctness, inferiority, and incompatibility (Bahk & Jandt, 2003b). Perceived Non-White Distinctness Perceived racial distinctness refers to the extent to which one perceives his/her own racial group to be dissimilar to his/her interactant's racial group in values, beliefs, and life styles (Bahk & Jandt, 2003b). Perceived non-White distinctness represents the extent to which one perceives non-Whites to be dissimilar to Whites. It is possible that different individuals perceive different levels of non-White distinctness. The context of interracial communication is likely to be characterized by high levels of novelty, uncertainty, and unfamiliarity and, as a result, generate anxiety or uneasiness among some individuals (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997). This can be more so when an individual considers one racial group (e.g., non-Whites) to be much different from another (e.g., Whites). Perceiving others to belong to an out-group, can create an impression that they have different values, beliefs, and behavioral styles. The perception of racial distinctness can cause individuals to experience unfamiliarity and uncertainty and to exhibit anxiety or uneasiness in interracial interactions (Gudykunst, 1985; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1984). Thus, the following hypothesis is tested empirically: H2: Explicit perceptions of non-White distinctness are positively associated with interracial interaction reluctance. Perceived Non-White Inferiority Bahk and Jandt (2003b) define perceived racial inferiority as the extent to which an individual considers his/her own racial group to be lower in social status and less privileged than the group in comparison. Perceiving one's own racial group to be either superior or inferior to another group can influence his/her interaction with members of the target group. Toale and McCroskey (2001) suggest that individuals' ethnocentric attitudes towards racial/ethnic out-groups (i.e., tendencies to perceive racial/ethnic outgroups to be inferior) are positively related to interracial/interethnic communication Interaction Reluctance 318 anxiety. It is expected that interracial interaction reluctance can also be observed among non-Whites who perceive themselves to be inferior to Whites in U.S. society. Jackson, Shin, and Wilson (2000) argue that through acknowledging the superiority and privilege of Whites in U.S. society, people who identify themselves as "non-Whites" come to internalize their status as inferior. Non-White individuals who absorb such ideology may believe that their White interaction partners regard them as inferior, unprivileged, and subordinate. It is possible that non-Whites' self-identification as belonging to an inferior racial group causes them some levels of reluctance to interact with Whites. Those who identify themselves as the targets of constant judgments by the superior/dominant group's rules and norms may find themselves in anxious positions when they encounter members of the superior group. Hence, the following hypothesis is formulated: H3: Explicit perceptions of non-White inferiority are positively associated with interracial interaction reluctance. Perceived Non-White Incompatibility Perceived racial incompatibility represents the extent to which an individual regards his/her own racial group and the group in comparison as not agreeable or congenial to each other and considers it difficult or useless to make efforts to learn about, and adapt to, the target group (Bahk & Jandt, 2003b). The level of interracial interaction reluctance is also likely to be related to the extent to which individuals, either White or non-White, perceive non-Whites to be incompatible with Whites. It is possible that different individuals might exhibit different levels of perceived racial incompatibility. No matter what levels of racial distinctness and inferiority---the two other dimensions of racial disparity---they perceive, some individuals might find it more or less difficult than others to learn about, adapt to, and get along with members of a racial out-group. That is, the perceptions of interracial incompatibility are also likely to produce reluctance to interact with members of a racial out-group. The following hypothesis is also added: H4: Explicit perceptions of non-White incompatibility are positively associated with interracial interaction reluctance. Method Participants A total of 169 students enrolled at a mid-size West Coast university completed a self-administered survey. Thirty-one of them also took the "Black-White" Implicit Association Test (IAT). Since the Race IAT used in the present study related only to White and African Americans, responses of other racial groups (i.e., Asian, Hispanic, and Native Americans) were excluded from the analysis. The mean age of the participants (82 White and 37 African Americans) was 24.9 yr. (SD = 7.3). Of them, 41 were men and 78 women. There were no significant differences (p > .05) in the composition of gender and age between White and African Americans. Instruments The questionnaire used in this study contains scales and question items that measure: 1) the perception of non-Whiteness in terms of distinctness, inferiority, and incompatibility, 2) the reluctance to interact with non-Whites (for White participants) or with Whites (for non-White participants), 3) the anxiety experienced during interactions with Whites (for non-Whites) or with non-Whites (for Whites), and 4) the perception of Whiteness. Participants also indicated their demographic characteristics such as sex, age, and race. C. Mo Bahk & Fred E. Jandt 319 Perceived Non-White Distinctness Perceived non-White disparity consisting of three dimensions (distinctness, inferiority, and incompatibility) was measured by the BNWAS (Being Non-White in America Scale)---a 16-item Likert-type scale. The BNWAS has three sections covering the three dimensions of non-White disparity perception respectively. The first section containing seven items measures the level of perceived non-White distinctness---the first dimension of the construct perceived non-White disparity. The 7-item Likert-type instrument has statements that relate to perceived dissimilarities between Whites and non-Whites in various aspects (e.g., life philosophies/worldviews, life values and styles, and interpersonal dealings/relationships). Participants indicated their agreement or disagreement with each of the statements on a 5-point scale anchored by 'strongly disagree' (1) and 'strongly agree' (5). The instrument includes such statements as "NonWhite people are different from Whites in many ways," "Non-Whites have different life values than do Whites," and "Non-Whites tend to deal with their problems differently than do Whites." A Cronbach internal reliability of the scale was α = .81. Perceived Non-White Inferiority The second dimension perceived non-White inferiority was indexed by the next 5 items of the BNWAS. The items measure the extent to which a person perceives nonWhite people to be underprivileged, disadvantaged, and less powerful, compared to Whites in U.S. society. The scale contains statements such as "In the U.S. society, nonWhite people are less privileged than Whites," "Non-Whites are disadvantaged economically in the U.S.," and "Non-Whites are less powerful in the U.S." The items were scored such that the higher the values, the greater the level of perceived inferiority of non-Whites compared to Whites in the U.S. society. An internal reliability of the scale