The structure(s) of racial attitudes among White college students

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

The structure(s) of racial attitudes among White college students John R. Baldwin a,*, L. Edward Day b, Michael L. Hecht b a

Department of Communication, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790 4480, USA b Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802-6207, USA

Abstract In this study, the notion of racism is reviewed and de®ned. Recent research has proposed at least three structures to Whites' racial attitudes: A one-dimensional structure in which racism is treated as a whole; target-based factors in which racism towards one target group might be di€erent than racism towards another target; and function-based factors in which there are di€erent aspects of racism towards a given target group. In this study, student responses to a measure of racism are used to test the three models. A three-factor solution provides the best explanation of the data, suggesting distinct, but interrelated views towards intimate interracial relationships, towards social relationships, and towards macro-social/ political phenomena. These ®ndings have both theoretical and policy implications. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Racial attitudes; Racism; Symbolic racism; Intolerance; Prejudice

1. The structure(s) of racial attitudes among White college students Racism: a system of beliefs, held consciously or otherwise, alleging the inferiority of members of one supposedly biologically di€erent group to those of one's own group. Racism focuses on perceived innate or `natural' di€erences between groups. It is grounded in the assumption that the di€erences are

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-309-438-7969; fax: +1-309-438-3048. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.R. Baldwin). 0147-1767/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 4 7 - 1 7 6 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 7 - 1

554

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

associated with (or even determine) behavior, culture, intellect, or social achievement. (Herbst, 1997, p. 193) Discussions of racial issues would be much easier if those seeking solutions to racism could simply pick up an encyclopedia and agree on simple de®nitions of words. Yet, even Herbst (1997), who provides the above concise de®nition, admits that di€erent racial groups might disagree on whether something is or is not racist. This highlights the fact found in ongoing research (Baldwin, 1995), that everyday users of the term racism have dramatically distinct de®nitions of the word. Such divergence of de®nition is not restricted, of course, to everyday usage. Scholars, as well, debate how racism should be understood. Some de®nitions allow any group that feels itself superior to be racist (e.g., Herbst's de®nition above Herbst, 1997). Other de®nitions de®ne racism as the combination of racial prejudice and societal power, in such a way that only those who have societal reinforcement of racist beliefs or actions (in the U.S., for example, only Whites), can be racist (Jones, 1972; Lowy, 1991).1 For some, racism is based on intention, belief, or attitude (following Allport's 1954 de®nition of prejudice as a sort of psychological avoidance); for others, it is de®ned in the result of actions which exclude based on supposed biological di€erences, whether or not there be any feelings of racial superiority or animosity (Goldberg, 1993). Following the structural/results-focus, some authors, when discussing racism, focus exclusively on institutionalized racism, such as that found in laws, government, and organizational policies (Ezorsky, 1991). While some attitude researchers focus on the more extreme acts frequently associated with racism, most are turning their attention to what they see as a changing form of racism. Omi and Winant (1986), along with many others, trace the strange trajectory of racial attitudes in the United States, noting that through the 1970s, it became less fashionable to be racist. Similar trends were noted in the Netherlands, France, and England (Essed, 1990, 1991; Hall, 1981; van Dijk, 1984). Researches uncovered both face-to-face and mediated discourses that disdain racial others without overtly appealing to `race.' In England, sociobiological notions that all groups inherently dislike what is di€erent were adopted to justify a defense of a [White] British way of life, leading to a new racism (Barker, 1981; Gilroy, 1990). And in the United States, racial attitudes were hidden through symbolic references to speci®c political issues (e.g., gangs, welfare, Armative Action). One might say nothing anti-Black, per se, but hold stereotypical and exclusionary political attitudes, earning this form of racism the label symbolic racism (Bobo, 1988; Franklin, 1991; McConahay & Hough, 1976; Sears, 1988). 1

A full description of the de®nitional debates is beyond the focus of the present article. In brief, however, those who take a psychological reading of race, seeing it in individual mental or behavioral terms, tend to take the view that anyone can be racist. Those who look at group structure, including many sociologists, multicultural educators, and political scientists, might be more likely to see racism linked to social structure.

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

555

In each country, the focus was on White attitudes, for in each, Whites had more power to discursively construct the other. Evidence suggests that in most [White] Western nations, there are new discourses which frame traditional, overt racism as illogical, but which still subtly work to maintain assumptions of di€erence and hierarchy (Billig et al., 1988), in what some have called an ``enlightened racism'' (Jhally & Lewis, 1992). Seeking to forge a bridge between the structuralist and individualist de®nitions of racism, we de®ne racism as any attitude, behavior (including discourse), or policy that either deliberately or inherently excludes someone based on supposed biological di€erences, with such racism exacerbated by social power di€erences. This de®nition allows that members of minority groups can engage in racist thought or behavior, but clearly recognizes that when racist thought, behavior, or policy is supported by structural power to de®ne cultural terms and enforce cultural policy (i.e., Whites in the U.S.), the racism is more severe and di€erent in nature than when not so supported. Elsewhere, we have argued that authors in various ®elds must work together to understand intolerance, including racism (Baldwin & Hecht, 1995; Hecht & Baldwin, 1998). Research needs to focus on laws, on representation, on verbal and nonverbal behaviors, and so on. However, research on attitudes also seems worthwhile. While much racism, by our de®nition, could be unintentional, one can be certain that intolerance in attitude is likely to be associated with intolerant acts or expression. The United States seems one good place to study racial attitudes, because of the strong history of racial relations and American culture's ``obsession'' with race issues (Terkel, 1990). Further, since the larger social structures in the United States support White culture (and are more likely to legitimize White racism), a focus on Whites seems appropriate, speci®cally those who self-identify with the dominant White group within the United States, Caucasian American (as opposed, for example, to White Hispanics or those who self-identify as Jewish American). Many researchers have turned their attention to the notion of identity. Some frame identities simply as the social categories through which people view themselves (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997; Tajfel, 1981). Those identities might be seen in terms of culture (``common patterns of interaction and perception''), ethnicity (with ``origins that are external to or precede existing nation states and are constituted through a shared sense of tradition, peoplehood, heritage, orientation to the past'' and so on (Hecht, Collier & Ribeau, 1993, pp. 15±16), or racial. Helms (1990) suggests that racial identity is both culturally and socio-politically de®ned. Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) would suggest that Whites cannot perceive of a racial `out-group' without a perception of the in-group. Helms (Helms 1990; Helms & Carter, 1990), for example, measures White identity in terms of one's perception of race and racism. Much research supports that how Whites perceive racial identities is related to their creation of messages (Frankenburg, 1993; Nakayama & Martin, 1999; van Dijk, 1984). Researchers have proposed at least three di€erent ways of conceptualizing the breadth of Whites' racial attitudes. Some scholars treated racism as a one-

556

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

dimensional construct Ð one is either racist or not. Others wondered if racism existed in target-based dimensions, that is, one might be racist toward one group, but be relatively accepting of another group. Still other research found racism to be multifaceted, usually with two to four factors of racism, such that one might score high on one aspect of racism, but low on another. The dimensions tend to be function-based, that is, based on di€erent spheres of activity such as dating versus political equalization. The purpose of this research project is to test these three notions of the structure of racism. Our goal is to provide a better understanding of the structure of racism so practitioners can address it at individual and societal levels. This goal forms a part of our larger desire to understand the nature of intolerance in general and of speci®c intolerances (racism, sexism, classism, etc.) to one another (Baldwin, 1998; Baldwin & Hecht, 1995; Hecht & Baldwin, 1998). 2. Review of literature Researchers have described the contour of racism in di€erent ways. This section outlines three approaches to the conceptualization of racism: racism as a onedimensional construct, racism as target-based factors, and racism as functionbased factors. 2.1. One-dimensional racism Early research on prejudice questioned the structure of and factors leading to intolerance. Allport (1979) argued for a commonality among intolerances: ``One of the facts of which we are most certain is that people who reject one out-group will tend to reject other out-groups. If a person is anti-Jewish, he is likely to be antiCatholic, anti-[Black], anti any out-group'' (p. 68). This belief is founded on the work of early social-psychologists who believed a similar psychological structure undergirded most prejudicial beliefs. To this end, various authors proposed measures of anti-Semitism (Levinson, 1982), fascism, authoritarianism (Adorno et al., 1982), and other correlates of prejudice. Adorno et al. (1982) listed a high correlation (0.74 or higher) between intolerances towards Blacks, `minorities,' nonAmericans (`Patriotism' scale), and total ethnocentrism. Prejudice, for Allport, was a ``trait of personality: when it takes root in a life it grows like a unit'' (p. 73, emphasis in the original). Recent scholars have corroborated the notion that prejudice is unitary. For example, Ray and Lovejoy (1986) found a generalized attitude toward several out-groups in Australia. Bierly (1985) concluded, ``Prejudice is a generalized attitude encompassing the quite distinct outgroups of Blacks, women, and homosexuals'' (p. 197). If prejudice is a unitary construct, then racism, a particular type of prejudice, would also be unitary. Various scales or measures of intolerance in the popular and academic press assumed a single-construct factor of racism. For example, a ``racism quotient'' questionnaire in The Village Voice was billed as ``the ®rst of

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

557

many steps toward learning about (and subsequently coping with) our individual prejudices'' (Noel, 1992, p. 34). The questionnaire was based on an assumption that racism is so socially acceptable that researchers should avoid direct questions and use more subtle measures. Therefore, the survey combined items on hiring choices, roommate choices at a hospital, reaction to interracial couples, attitudes towards major wars, likelihood to try ``ethnic cuisine,'' likelihood to visit an ethnicity-based museum of a group besides one's own, and so on. The resulting score determined the extent of one's racism. Similarly, Byrnes and Kiger (1988) developed a scale using scenarios. Respondents indicated in a forced-choice questionnaire what they would do in a number of social situations (e.g., respondent is waiting at a counter and is attended before a Black client who has been waiting longer). Other writers included a speci®c aspect of racial attitudes, such as: stereotypes of di€erent races (Leonard & Locke, 1993); perceived comfort of Whites when in social situations with Black individuals, such as driving through a Black neighborhood or going to a Black physician (Claney & Parker, 1989); or simply ``race prejudice'' (Heaven & Furnham, 1987). Jackman and Crane (1986) studied children's formation of friendships, noting that many White children, even when forming friendships with Black children, were not in favor of initiatives that would equalize educational or occupational possibilities for Blacks. In this case, even though researchers looked at di€erent aspects of racism, one criterion (e.g., opposition to political reforms) determined one as `racist.' In this sense, racism is implicitly treated as one-dimensional. Byrd (1991, 1993) reviewed some of these sources when she constructed her multi-dimensional Tolerance for Human Diversity Instrument (THDI). The purpose of the measure was to tap respondents' attitudes towards several types of diversity, including sexism, homophobia, classism, and ageism. The racism questions included items such as comfort when one is in the racial minority, likelihood to marry or be roommates of a person of a di€erent race, or admission that a member of one's family is of a di€erent race. Byrd (1991) noted, ``One glaring problem with this investigation is the fact that no questions concerning race loaded on any factor'' (p. 6). This statement foreshadowed a challenge to the one-dimensional approach to race. Even if scales of racial tolerance have high internal reliabilities, this may not mean racism should be viewed as single-faceted. 2.2. Racism as target-speci®c Some philosophers of race hold that racism, as a word, is an empty vessel that we ®ll with meaning (Goldberg, 1990, 1993; Outlaw, 1990).These authors argue that there are di€erent racisms; that is, that racism is articulated di€erently in each culture and during di€erent historical periods within a given culture. According to these authors, each society determines through discourse who is in which race and what forms of exclusion are acceptable. We can extend this notion to the de®nition of racism itself: just as there are discourses of what constitutes race at a given time (Banton, 1987; CCCS, 1982; Omi & Winant, 1986), people

558

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

also socially negotiate what they consider to be racism. Research suggests that people engage in rhetorical maneuvers to de®ne what they see as `racist' in a way that makes them `nonracist,' even if others might consider their behaviors to be racist (Baldwin, 1995; Buttny, 1997; Buttny & Williams, in press). If race and racism are socially and discursively created, it seems likely that Asian-American identity would be articulated one way and Native American in another. The Communication Theory of Ethnic Identity (Hecht, 1993; Hecht, Collier & Ribeau, 1993) proposed that identity is experienced intrapsychically, but is also expressed communicatively in dyads, relationships, and in communities. This approach highlighted the speci®city of each identity. The Layered Perspective of Intolerance (Baldwin & Hecht, 1995; Hecht & Baldwin, 1998) proposed that there are spheres of intolerance based on perceived identities of others and that intolerance might be greater toward members of one ethnic identity than another. Speci®cally, Black identity, more clearly linked in the White American mind as a biological di€erence, may be seen di€erently than an identity which, in the minds of many, may be `closer' to White Ð that of Latinos. Research showed that Whites are more likely to want to date or marry Latinos than Blacks, supporting this notion (e.g., Lampe, 1982). Further, `social distance' research (Allport, 1979) suggests that Whites may see some outgroups as more ``desirable'' than others.

2.3. Racism as multi-faceted Much research has investigated the contours of racial attitudes, especially those of Whites towards Blacks. Early research revealed large variations among Whites in their attitudes towards Blacks in regard to interracial contact, black protest, civil rights legislation, and other political issues (Campbell, 1972; Pettigrew, 1975). Jarmon (1980) found large di€erences between Whites' willingness to accept Blacks in di€erent social settings (e.g., in political oce, as President, in same restaurants, sharing swimming pools, intermarriage) and Blacks' beliefs about Whites' views. In each case, White participants felt Whites would be more accepting of the items than Blacks felt they would be. Pertinent to the present study, Jarmon (1980) discovered di€erences even among the Whites' views of what they thought other Whites would accept. The White respondents were fairly consistent with how many Whites they felt would accept Blacks in most situations Ð between 70 and 85%. Only 42% felt Whites would accept Blacks as supervisors; 12% felt Whites would accept a Black President; and between 7 and 13% felt Whites would favor interracial dating or marriage. This suggests that there may be di€erent domains of racial thought among Whites. Several recent writers have tried to explain these anomalies by outlining di€erent forms of racism. Brislin (1991), for example, o€ers a conceptual framework of types of racism: (1) red-neck racism in which people feel that ``members of a given cultural group are inferior according to some imagined standard and that the group members are not worthy of decent treatment''

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

559

(p. 356);2 (2) symbolic racism, in which Whites feel threats to their value systems or to the status quo from a racial group and feel dislike toward that group, but who do not hold to or admit more overt racist statements; (3) tokenism, in which people ``engage in unimportant, but positive, intergroup behaviors'' that allows them to think of themselves as tolerant (p. 357); (4) arms-length prejudice, in which people are positive towards out-group members but do not want close relationships like dating between people of di€erent races; (5) real likes and dislikes, in which people do not prefer the cultural choices of another racial group; and (6) the familiar and the unfamiliar, in which people are ``likely to prefer to interact with members of their own cultural group'' (p. 358), as they are familiar with the patterns of that group. Many researchers, analyzing attitudes, media representation, face-to-face communication, and political attitudes, have proposed two-dimensional approaches. For example, Appiah (1990) distinguished between intrinsic racists, who believe that there is some inherent nature to another group that justi®es dislike (similar to Brislin's ®rst category), and extrinsic racists, who claim dislike based on some supposed trait (similar to Brislin's ®fth and sixth categories). That is, extrinsic racists have a (supposedly) observable reason for not liking the other. Intrinsic racists do not like the others simply because they are a member of another race. A di€erent two-dimensional approach focuses on a more traditional expression of racism as opposed to one which is more subtle or indirect. This approach has received the most attention in the literature, both in terms of conceptualizing and measuring racism. Various researchers have labeled the two dimensions di€erently, but there are underlying similarities, as well as subtle di€erences among the dimensions. The ®rst dimension tends to include overt instances of racism, such as violence and other hate crimes, as well as statements or beliefs that are openly derogatory or in¯ammatory, based clearly on race. Traditional attitudinal racism includes such things as desires to keep races segregated or traditional stereotypes Whites might have of Blacks. This has been called traditional racism, overt racism and redneck racism. Most authors suggest that the contour of race relations in America has changed to make overt racism unacceptable (Bobo, 1988; Franklin, 1991; Omi & Winant, 1986; Schuman, Steeh & Bobo, 1985). Rather than disappear, however, racism has merely gone underground, taking new forms. For example, Sigelman and Welch (1991) propose that ``old-fashioned racism'' could be giving way to ``subtle new forms of prejudice, often labeled `symbolic' racism'' (p. 51). Hall (1981), discussing overt and inferential racism in media representation, suggested as early as the early 1980s that one would be much more likely to see images with hidden racist assumptions rather than overt racist statements. That might entail subtle ways of

2 Our reporting of Brislin's (1991) terms here is not intended to endorse them. In fact, some might object that the label, red-neck racism, itself, reproduces sterotypes of Southerners, rural inhabitants, and others.

560

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

speaking, verbal pauses, shifts of body posture, or the encoding of political attitudes that are, at least in the minds of the communicators, racialized. This suggests a second dimension of racism which authors have called yuppie racism, symbolic racism, everyday racism, modern racism, and intrinsic racism. Table 1 contains a list of these dimensions with their key elements. Research, both quantitative-scienti®c (e.g., McConahay & Hough, 1976) and interpretive-humanistic (e.g., Essed, 1990, 1991; van Dijk, 1984) support these two dimensions. Other researchers have suggested that there are not two, but four factors of White racial attitudes. Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993) surveyed Dutch students and distinguished four levels or types of racism: aversive racism (``contact with outgroup is threatening''; keep social distance); ethnocentrism (``outgroups must adjust to ingroups''), symbolic racism (grant rights, but not more than deserved), and biological racism (``di€erences between ethnic groups are innate,'' p. 24). Exploratory factor analyses con®rmed, with minor variation, the four subscales, and Guttman analysis suggested that ``the four racism scales measure aspects of a single underlying ethnic attitude dimension, which is also cumulative (p. 30, emphases in original). Notably, a single scale, such as `biological racism,' might include items that seem to be conceptually diverse (biological racism: di€erences in intelligence and right to live in same neighborhood; ethnocentrism opposition to interbreeding and Dutch government should exclude minorities ). Further, some factors seem to con¯ict with other attitude measures, such as McConahay's division between traditional and modern racism (McConahay, 1986), discussed below. The traditional/modern racism work (McConahay & Hough, 1976; McConahay, 1986) suggests two factors Ð one containing attitudes surrounding symbolic politics (modern racism ) and another, more traditional beliefs about the inferiority of Blacks or separation of the races (traditional racism ). Because of the conceptually dicult make-up of the four factors in the study of Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993) and their inclusion of more extreme forms of racism that some suggest will lead to high social desirability bias (Claney & Parker, 1989), the two-factor approach seems more useful. At the same time, attitude research cited above (Jarmon, 1980) suggests that in either of these two dimensions there are di€erences. For example, many Whites might favor empowerment to Blacks but still favor exclusion from key leadership positions (e.g., President of the United States). More importantly for communication studies, Whites in the United States seem to di€er in willingness to engage in social interaction or relationships, with less willingness to engage in intimate relationships. Thus, a three-factor model that distinguishes two levels of social connectedness as well as a political attitude dimension might be in order. 2.4. Research question If we are to challenge racism, educate people and change systems, we need to know what we are addressing. What we do not know is whether racial attitudes

Dimension Two

New Racism: Preservation of one's way of life, sometimes grounded in sociobiological notion of the inevitability of division between races Inferential racism: Media images that are based on underlying racist assumptions Subtle racism: Racism encoded in comments about foreigners, racialized politics, etc. Everyday racism: The subtle, unnamable delays, harassments, etc., faced by people of color. Symbolic racism: Racism encoded in symbols that do not invoke race, including some conservative voting behavior Modern racism: Refusal to recognize Black resistance to Traditional racism: Feelings that Blacks are mentally inferior, should not date Whites, should be ``kept in their White authority structures, e.g., ``Black anger,'' political coverage place,'' etc. Enlightened racism, Yuppie racism; see symbolic racism

``Old'' racism (implied): Racism that has more overt statements of actual racial inferiority based on supposed biological di€erences Overt racism: Open media images and statements which propagate traditional stereotypes Traditional racism (implied): In Europe, racism tied to acts of violence, Nazis, etc. Extreme racism (implied): Acts of violence

Dimension One

Table 1 Two-dimensional approaches to racism

(Jhally & Lewis, 1992; Lowy, 1991)

(McConahay, 1986)

(Brislin, 1991; McConahay & Hough, 1976; Sears, 1988; Bobo, 1988)

(Essed, 1990, 1991)

(van Dijk, 1984, 1987)

(Hall, 1981)

(Barker, 1981; Franklin, 1991; Gilroy, 1990; Miles, 1989)

Authors

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577 561

562

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

assume a singular structure in Whites' minds or whether there are di€erent factors. If there are di€erent factors, there are di€erent possibilities for the number and structure of the factors. A target-based set of factors (that is, based on the perceived racial/ethnic group of the target) receives impetus from (a) the dating choice research cited above; (b) the notion of `social distance,' and (c) the idea that the identity of Mexican and Black Americans may be articulated di€erently in the minds of many Whites. Finally, although some past research suggests that racism is `overt' or `subtle,' many scales or notions used in these distinctions in fact seem related to spheres of activity: political, intimate, or interactional, suggesting a function-based factor structure, with either two factors, as found in prior research, or three, as suggested by Jarmon (1980). Thus, our research question is: Which factor structure provides the greatest ®t for participant responses to a scale of racism Ð a one-factor solution; a two-factor solution based on ethnic identity (racism towards Blacks, racism towards Mexican Americans); a two-factor solution based on function of racism (interaction/relational versus macrosocial); or a three-factor functional model (macrosocial, interaction, intimate relations)? 3. Methodology 3.1. Participants Participants were 282 undergraduate students at a large university in the southwestern United States. The respondents had a mean age of 21.1 years (median = 20, range, 18±45) and consisted of 135 males (48%) and 147 females (52%). They reported a mean family income of $70,000 and, on average, paid 40% of their own expenses. The students were part of a larger sample …n ˆ 440† who completed the measure. However, as our focus was the structure of racial attitudes, we felt combining scores from participants of di€erent races would lead to convoluted ®ndings. For this study, we used only the answers of the 282 participants who self-reported their ethnicity as Caucasian American, European American, or White [American] in open-ended response. 3.2. Instrument The students completed a questionnaire in which they responded to demographic questions and 80 closed-ended attitude questions.3 The questionnaire was developed in the following manner: (a) We started with a survey developed by Byrd (1991, 1993). Her 40-item Tolerance of Human Diversity Instrument (THDI) reported satisfactory subscale reliability for several subscales of intolerance (racism, sexism, ageism, etc.). In a previous analysis we examined the

3 In addition, one half of the participants answered open-ended questions on the nature of racism, and one-half, on the nature of sexism, which data were used in another study.

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

563

dimensionality of this scale using con®rmatory factor analysis (PACKAGE, Hunter & Cohen, 1969). The results of these analyses appear in Baldwin and Hecht (1993) and provide partial support for the scale. (b) While the resulting subscales had stronger internal consistencies than the original subscales, the reduction of items to achieve these consistencies resulted in low subscale reliabilities. Thus, we consulted with literature (McConahay, 1986; Noel, 1992; Palmore, 1990) and with scholars from ®elds of gay and lesbian studies, communication with/of the elderly, African American communication, religious intolerance, and disability concerns.4 Prior scales (including Byrd's 1993 scale) and scholars' contributions yielded 72 items (12 for general intolerance of diversity, 10 for sexism, 10 for religious intolerance, 9 for heterosexism [homophobia], 9 for ageism, 7 for abelism, 7 for classism and 16 for racism, as described below). The total scale had 80 items. Wording on some items indicated increased tolerance, and on others, a decreased tolerance, and items on speci®c intolerances were interspersed (i.e., sexism items were dispersed throughout measure Ð not grouped together) in an e€ort to reduce response bias. To reduce social desirability bias and to make scaling comparable to that of Byrd (1993), we used a four-point Likert scale (A = strongly agree, B = agree, C = disagree, D = strongly disagree). Some participants forced a neutral answer between B and C. Such answers were coded as missing data. Pairwise deletion was used for missing responses. The racism scale, the speci®c focus of this study, was based on Byrd's original racism scale (Byrd, 1993). That scale took into account items from Bierly (1985) and Ray and Lovejoy (1986). Con®rmatory Factor Analysis (in a prior study, Baldwin & Hecht, 1993) reduced the number of items to an internally consistent group. Further items came from McConahay's modern and traditional racism scales (McConahay, 1986), with items removed to avoid redundancy and to not tap extremely overt beliefs that some suggest would not produce valid responses (Claney & Parker, 1992; Noel, 1992). Thus, the ®nal racism scale included key items from several prior measures.5 Since Byrd's scale for racism did not yield a consistent factor (Byrd, 1991), we speculated that target-based questions might factor out more cleanly. Thus, rather than 8 general questions on racism (similar to those Byrd used), we created 8 with African Americans as the target of the attitude and 8 with Mexican-Americans as the target. The 16 items appear in Appendix A. The inclusion of two target groups addresses a limitation in prior research that frames interracial research only in terms of Blacks and Whites (Altman & Nakayama, 1991). Mexican and Black Americans were chosen as the targets of 4 Thanks to Dr. Lisa Bradford, Dr. A. Cheree Carlson, Dr. Fred Corey, Dr. Robert Kastenbaum, Dr. Robert Krizek, Rabbi Barton Lee, Dr. Thomas Nakayama, Dr. Heidi Rose, and Dr. Kristen Valentine for assistance in developing scale items. 5 The entire measures were not used due to the broader focus of the line of research, to tap factors of and interconnections between various intolerances. A large number of racial items would create imbalance in the scale and might lead to response fatigue.

564

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

the attitudes for this measure ®rst because they constitute the two largest U.S. ethnic groups after Whites (Bureau of the Census, 1992). Further, Blacks may be seen more in `racial' terms (with underlying baggage of supposed biological di€erence), and Mexican-Americans in `ethnic' terms (with di€erences perceived more in cultural terms). The label Mexican Americans, rather than Latinos, was chosen following previous ®ndings that speci®c racial/ethnic targets produced more consistent answers among participants than more general target identities (Baldwin & Hecht, 1993; Byrd, 1991). Finally, these two groups were chosen as it was likely that participants in the area of the study (Phoenix, Arizona valley) would most likely have more contact with people from these groups. 3.3. Procedures Researchers distributed surveys in two large sections of a lower-division communication course at a university in the southwestern U.S. in the Fall of 1992. Respondents volunteered by returning the survey and received no incentives (e.g., extra-credit or remuneration) for participation. The survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete. After the participants completed the survey, researchers debriefed them as to the purposes of the study. Introductory lectures on diversity and communication followed the completion of the surveys. 3.4. Data analysis This analysis focuses on the 16 racism items targeting African Americans and Mexican Americans. The 16 items assess respondents' attitudes toward minorities across a range of social distances. The items refer to dating (I would not hesitate to date an [African/Mexican] American), marriage (I would not marry an [African/Mexican] American), conversation (I feel comfortable talking to [African/ Mexican] Americans), culture ([African/Mexican] American culture has a lot of problems which keep [African/Mexican] Americans down), armative action (Because of armative action, many [African/Mexican] Americans have gotten jobs they are not quali®ed for), government and media attention (The government and news media have paid more attention to [African/Mexican] Americans than they should), shared housing (I would not be roommates or housemates with an [African/Mexican] American), and empathy with the plight of minorities (It's easy to understand the anger of [African/Mexican] Americans). Responses are recoded so that high scores re¯ect greater tolerance. Means, standard deviations, and zeroorder correlations between recoded items appear in Table 2. Four factor structure models for these data are displayed in Fig. 1. These models are theoretically driven, that is, based upon the contrasting theoretical predictions noted above. Model one treats racism as a unidimensional construct, with all 16 items loading on a general racism factor. Model two speci®es two factors based on ethnic/racial identity, with the 8 items targeting African Americans loading on Factor 1, and the 8 targeting Mexican Americans loading on Factor 2. This model was included due to the weight of literature proposing a

2.54 0.92

Mean Standard deviation

b

listwise deletion of missing data, N ˆ 237:. p < 0:05 (1-tailed). c p < 0:01 (1-tailed).

a

0.50c 0.65c 0.16c 0.15c 0.20c 0.23c 0.22c 0.21c

0.59c 0.57c 0.18c 0.17c 0.20c 0.22c 0.25c 0.13b 2.65 0.96

± 0.17c 0.11 0.24c 0.21c 0.38c 0.21c

V2

± 0.73c 0.25c 0.14b 0.18c 0.25c 0.40c 0.20c

V1

African American Items V1: dating V2: marriage V3: talking to V4: problematic culture V5: armative action V6: govt. & media attention V7: roommate V8: understand anger Mexican American Items V9: dating V10: marriage V11: talking to V12: problematic culture V13: armative action V14: govt. & media attention V15: roommate V16: understand anger

Variable

Table 2 Correlations, means, and standard deviationsa

1.64 0.60

0.24c 0.23c 0.46c 0.16c 0.07 0.24c 0.38c ÿ0.08

± 0.17c 0.11b 0.24c 0.53c 0.20c

V3

2.57 0.81

0.14b 0.13b 0.15b 0.64c 0.16c 0.24c 0.22c 0.00

± 0.33c 0.24c 0.25c 0.14b

V4

2.71 0.77

0.12b 0.22c 0.15b 0.20c 0.62c 0.34c 0.20c 0.21c

± 0.53c 0.24c 0.31c

V5

2.38 0.75

0.20c 0.24c 0.14b 0.24c 0.47c 0.56c 0.24c 0.19c

± 0.32c 0.39c

V6

1.86 0.82

0.39c 0.44c 0.49c 0.26c 0.18c 0.31c 0.63c 0.05

± 0.25c

V7

2.46 0.82

0.23c 0.16c 0.15c 0.10 0.33c 0.34c 0.12b 0.40c

±

V8

2.45 0.87

± 0.64c 0.30c 0.28c 0.25c 0.30c 0.39c 0.14b

V9

2.46 0.94

± 0.33c 0.27c 0.30c 0.33c 0.44c 0.17c

V10

1.80 0.65

± 0.23c 0.10 0.25c 0.54c 0.07

V11

2.52 0.76

± 0.32c 0.36c 0.28c 0.02

V12

2.55 0.72

± 0.48c 0.19c 0.28c

V13

2.22 0.61

± 0.39c 0.13b

V14

1.84 0.74

± 0.05

V15

2.77 0.69

±

V16

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577 565

566

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

two-factor model. The review of literature above, however, suggests Model three as an alternative two factor approach based on the recent two-dimensional conceptualizations. For this model, relational items (conversation, shared housing, dating, marriage) that re¯ect overt behavioral choices load on Factor 1. Macrosocial items (minority anger, media attention, problematic culture, armative action), which re¯ect attitudes conceptualized as intrinsic, implicit, or inferential racism, load on Factor 2. Model 4 is a three factor solution based on the functions of interactions. Factor 1 in this model includes the items referring to intimate relationships (dating, marriage). Factor 2 includes the items which refer to non-intimate social relationships (conversation, shared housing). The third factor includes the remaining macro-social items. Maximum likelihood estimates for model parameters are generated with the EQS software package (Bentler, 1990). Consistent with the recommendations of Marsh, Balla and McDonald (1988), the relative ®t of each model is examined with multiple measures Ð chi-square, the normed ®t index (NFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), the non-normed ®t index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), and the

Fig. 1. Four proposed factor structures of racial attitudes.

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

567

comparative ®t index (CFI; Bentler, 1990). In order for models such as these to be identi®ed, either the regression weight of one indicator of each factor or the variance of each factor must be ®xed. Since factor loadings are of greater interest here than factor variances, we follow the procedure used by Gillmore et al. (1991) and ®xed factor variances at 1.0. 4. Results Standardized path coecients, zero-order correlations among the factors, and ®t statistics are shown in Table 3 None of the models achieves an impressive absolute ®t. Although diagnostics (not shown) suggest an adequate absolute ®t could be achieved for Model 4 by eliminating the anger items and correlating errors among some items, these procedures were not completed. Relative, not absolute, ®t of the a priori speci®cations is the object of these analyses. Comparing Model 1 (one factor) to Model 2 (two group membership-based factors), the ®t statistics suggest that they are virtually the same. The two factor solution contributes no improvement to ®t, and the estimated correlation between the two factors of Model 2 is 0.92. The general model, providing a more parsimonious solution, is the better choice of the two. These results suggest that the ethnic group of the target is not an important dimension in the structure of racism. This comparison, taken alone, would lend support to those who argue that racism is a unitary phenomenon across ethnicity; those who lack tolerance for one group are likely to disapprove of other groups. The alternative two-factor solution provided by Model 3, compared to Model 1, does provide a signi®cant improvement in ®t (the di€erence X 2 ‰df ˆ 1, N ˆ 237Š ˆ 231:34, p < 0:001). This ®nding challenges the unidimensional conceptualization. The results suggest that intolerance for di€erent cultures may exist even though it is not re¯ected in the overt behavioral choices people make in daily interactions. Model 4 (three functional factors), on the other hand, provides a signi®cant improvement in ®t compared to Model 3 (the di€erence X 2 ‰df ˆ 2, N ˆ 237Š ˆ 182:88, p < :001). As with Model 3, the moderate correlations between the factors in Model 4 show that the dimensions are oblique but not collinear. This ®nding suggests how the two-dimensional conceptualizations recently proposed may be further speci®ed. Levels of intolerance vary across di€erent functional domains of interaction, and those domains appear to be de®ned by social distance. 5. Discussion In brief, in the present analysis, the superior ®t of Model 4 to the data suggests that the present scale, based on elements of prior scales, measures multiple aspects of racism, and that White American attitudes towards Black and Mexican

568

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

Americans di€ered more along dimensions of activity (e.g., socializing, dating, political involvement) than on whether the target was Mexican or Black American. At the same time, the lack of an impressive absolute ®t of any of the models suggests that work on scale construction and other methods for understanding racial attitudes should continue. While on the surface, one might think the structure of racial attitudes merely an academic question, it is an important matter. Speci®cally, the present project has implications for intergroup theory, methodology, and daily practice. Table 3 Standardized parameter estimates and measures of ®ta Model 1

X2 df N X 2 =df NFI NNFI CFI

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Path

Coecient

Path

Coecient

Path

Coecient

Path

Coecient

F1,V1 F1,V2 F1,V3 F1,V4 F1,V5 F1,V6 F1,V7 F1,V8 F1,V9 F1,V10 F1,V11 F1,V12 F1,V13 F1,V14 F1,V15 F1,V16

0.65b 0.64b 0.44b 0.33b 0.43b 0.50b 0.67b 0.38b 0.67b 0.73b 0.48b 0.43b 0.46b 0.55b 0.60b 0.23b

F1,V1 F1,V2 F1,V3 F1,V4 F1,V5 F1,V6 F1,V7 F1,V8 F2,V9 F2,V10 F2,V11 F2,V12 F2,V13 F2,V14 F2,V15 F2,V16

0.68b 0.67b 0.45b 0.33b 0.43b 0.50b 0.67b 0.39b 0.70b 0.76b 0.49b 0.43b 0.46b 0.55b 0.61b 0.22b

F1,V1 F1,V2 F1,V3 F1,V7 F1,V9 F1,V10 F1,V11 F1,V15 F2,V4 F2,V5 F2,V6 F2,V8 F2,V12 F2,V13 F2,V14 F2,V16

0.68b 0.69b 0.25b 0.52b 0.63b 0.76b 0.29b 0.42b 0.32b 0.53b 0.54b 0.40b 0.34b 0.52b 0.41b 0.21b

F1,V1 F1,V2 F1,V9 F1,V10 F2,V3 F2,V7 F2,V11 F2,V15 F3,V4 F3,V5 F3,V6 F3,V8 F3,V12 F3,V13 F3,V14 F3,V16

0.81b 0.81b 0.72b 0.79b 0.60b 0.84b 0.63b 0.75b 0.40b 0.69b 0.72b 0.49b 0.44b 0.72b 0.67b 0.30b

F1,F2

0.92b

F1,F2

0.50b

F1,F2 F1,F3 F2,F3

0.55b 0.44b 0.46b

824.74 104 237 7.93 0.50 0.46 0.53

817.29 103 237 7.93 0.51 0.46 0.53

593.40 103 237 5.76 0.64 0.63 0.68

410.52 101 237 4.06 0.75 0.76 0.80

a V1 through V8 are indicators of attitudes toward African Americans and V9 through V16 are indicators of attitudes toward Mexican Americans. V1,V9 = dating; V2,V10 = marriage; V3,V11 = talking to; V4,V12 = problematic culture; V5,V13 = armative action; V6,V14 = government and media attention; V7,V15 = roommate; V8,V16 = understand anger. F = factor. NFI = Bentler±Bonett normed ®t index; NNFI = Bentler-Bonett non-normed ®t index; CFI = comparative ®t index. b p < 0.01.

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

569

5.1. Theoretical implications The Layered Perspective of Cultural (In)Tolerance(s) argues that a given intolerance has multiple, complex in¯uences, from the individual psychological structure of the intolerant individual to economic and social pressures, to the impact of constructions of the Other in popular culture and academic textbooks (Baldwin, 1998; Baldwin & Hecht, 1995). Originally, we argued that the various in¯uences and articulations were layered upon each other, creating diverse and complex forms of intolerance. Research by many authors led us to believe that there may be some underlying components that hold all intolerances (racism, sexism, etc.) together, and yet cultural di€erences may alter the way a given intolerance manifests itself (Hecht & Baldwin, 1998). We suggested that di€erent spheres of intolerance were based on the perceived identity of the target of the intolerance, and that one might have tolerance or even appreciation for one group (e.g., people of a di€erent social class) but still hold intolerance for people of another group (e.g., people of a di€erent race). Following Goldberg's (1993) notion that di€erent racisms were articulated di€erently, we wondered if there might even be distinct articulations of racism against, say, Blacks as opposed to other `racial/ethnic' groups. This would suggest that Whites would report di€erent attitudes towards, say, Black than Mexican Americans. This contention explicitly opposed what some had called generalized prejudice, an approach that suggests that all prejudice, and by extension, racism, has a common element or underlying structure (Allport, 1979; Bierly, 1985; Ray & Lovejoy, 1986). The present research fails to support our contention of ethnic/racial targetbased racism. A single-factor solution, which suggests generalized prejudice, explains the data here as well as a two-factor model based on race/ethnicity of target, and, as it is a simpler explanation, would be preferred to the target-based model. Still, we should not yet abandon the notion of target spheres. First, White attitudes require more investigation. Although the focus on Mexican and Black Americans was expedient and had some logical sense behind it, it is likely that attitudes towards Native Americans or Asian Americans (frequently stereotyped as `the model minority') would di€er. Second, researchers might use the present method, or one similar, to investigate the attitudes of various racial groups towards Whites and towards other groups. For example, Blacks might have di€erent attitudes toward Asian Americans than towards Latino/Americans. Researchers should also consider context: Black attitudes (for example) might di€er towards Korean or Puerto Rican Americans depending on where in the United States the Blacks lived. Third, attitude research needs to continue to investigate attitudes within so-called racial groups, such as among Latin Americans from various countries (Marõ n & Salazar, 1985). Research can also continue in each of these areas in countries besides the United States, where both di€erences and similarities with U.S. attitudes might exist. Researchers should continue to investigate intersections and divergences between various target groups. The present study looked only at two racial/ethnic groups which, based on the lack of ®t of the target-based model in this study, may

570

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

be more closely identi®ed in the White mind than we ®rst thought. However, the same participants might respond di€erently if the highlighted identity were based on age, class, or sexual orientation. Indeed, the data upon which the present analyses were made found distinct factors for sexism, classism, ageism, `ableism,' and sexual orientation, suggesting some divergence among White respondents' answers. Yet, correlations between the di€erent intolerances also suggest some, but limited overlaps (see Table 4). Since the items on the measures were designed to tap speci®c intolerant attitudes toward each group, as framed by experts in each ®eld, the items have di€erent wording and content. Thus, more commensurate measures might include similar items towards each group. The present study suggests that spheres of activity (dating, conversing, political e€orts), rather than spheres of identity (Mexican, African American), may di€erentiate racial and other intolerances. This reframes both the Layered Perspective (e.g. Hecht & Baldwin, 1998), which looked at identity-based spheres, as well as the ``modern/traditional racism'' approach (e.g., McConahay, 1986). Many researchers have suggested that Whites might score low on measures of `traditional' racism, including overtly anti-Black statements, but high on more subtle, symbolic, or covert scales of racism (e.g., McConahay & Hough, 1976; McConahay, 1986). A two-factor model that conceptualizes these dimensions in terms of interactional and macrosocial (e.g., political) dimensions fared better than the target-based or single-factor approach, based on a new measure which incorporated items from McConahay and others. Still, a three-factor model suggests that even those activities may exist in more than one factor, with interaction meriting a di€erent factor than intimate relationship. This di€erence might recommend a two-axis model that includes both `degree' and `function.' This corresponds to ®ndings by Jarmon (1980) and others that suggest that even if Whites are comfortable with interaction, they may not favor dating. And while Whites might not oppose giving some political/economic equalization to Blacks,

Table 4 Correlations between various intolerances (Baldwin & Hecht, 1994)a Variable

Racism Sexism Homoneg Ageism Ableism Classism Religious intolerence General

Racism Sexism Homoneg Ageism Ableism Classism Religious General

1.00 0.40c 0.48c 0.31c 0.42c 0.48c ÿ0.20b 0.33c

a

1.00 0.44 0.31 0.45c 0.42c 0.02 0.28c

1.00 0.16b 0.33c 0.38c ÿ0.04 0.26c

1.00 0.48c 0.27c ÿ0.13 0.22c

1.00 0.41c ÿ0.17b 0.27c

1.00 ÿ0.03 0.35c

1.00 ÿ0.09

Listwise deletion of missing data, N ˆ 212; Correlations derived through SPSS-PC. p < 0:05 (1-tailed). c p < 0:01 (1-tailed).

b

1.00

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

571

many might oppose Blacks in high oce. That is to say, attitudes might di€er both on dimensions of activity as well as degree of in¯uence or contact. Just as scholars di€er on whether racism should be de®ned in individual, psychological terms or terms of collective power and privilege, so Whites in their everyday attitudes might favor attitudes which are more inclusive at the individual level but resist those which address group-held power. Future research can further investigate a group-held power aspect of intolerance and can include examination of the more overt racist statements pulled from prior scales for the purposes of the present study. Power perspectives might be blended with outgroup perception perspectives (e.g., Social Identity Theory by Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) to further understand similarities and di€erences across racisms. 5.2. Methodological implications The present project provides some illumination to the structure of White racial attitudes and gives impetus to much future research, yet it also points to a limitation in methodology (an appropriate discussion in this special methodological issue of IJIR). First, we cannot be sure that simply leaving out the overt racist items will preclude the social desirability bias. In the politically correct and racially sensitive academic environment of the study participants, their desire to provide a socially acceptable answer could cloud the ®ndings. The degree to which any closed-ended measure, by itself, can uncover how participants really feel about racial issues is uncertain. Some interpretive perspectives o€er a di€erent methodological window through which to view racial attitudes. The Communication Theory of Ethnic Identity, for example (Collier & Thomas, 1988; Hecht, 1993; Hecht, Collier & Ribeau, 1993) recommends open-ended data collection to understand how identity is experienced and expressed at individual, dyadic, relational, and communal levels. Open-ended data collection (interviews, open-ended questionnaires, group interviews) might provide more in-depth understanding of participants' intolerance based on these same levels. If great trust were developed between participants and researchers, the social desirability bias might be circumvented. It is likely that the life experiences of targets of intolerance are accessible through interpretive research (e.g., Houston, 1997; Orbe, 1994). However, in Baldwin's (1995, 1996) research, even the participants who were friends with the interviewer seemed to go through verbal gymnastics to avoid the appearance of being racist. Perhaps more promising methods, including textual/rhetorical approaches such as Cultural Studies (Hall, 1981) or discourse analysis of everyday communication (e.g. Buttny, 1997; Buttny & Williams, in press; van Dijk, 1984; 1998) would help uncover the underlying sets of assumptions (ideologies) a group holds about itself and other groups that give a unique signature to each intolerance. What the present ®ndings seem to suggest is that, despite descriptive research which suggests di€erent sets of stereotypes surrounding Mexican and Black Americans on the part of U.S. Whites, when one measures certain attitudes, no

572

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

di€erences emerge. This suggests that there may be some deep-structure ideologies which are similar in the White mind regarding the two groups. For example, both might be perceived by many Whites in racial rather than ethnic, or social class rather than cultural terms. A combination of methods, including rhetorical and discourse analytic methods may help understand the complexities of White ideologies of race and ethnicity. If the ideology of racism is tied to individual thought and exclusion in the minds of most White participants, one could hold positive attitudes towards interracial relationships out of a desire to be `reasonable,' yet still oppose collective-based strategies to reduce racism (Billig et al., 1988). However, such a view could also sti¯e support for measures that address the structural components which keep racial inequalities in place. 5.3. Practical implications One can easily see that theoretical and methodological questions quickly lead to implications for everyday practice, including training and development. Bennett (1986) o€ers strategies for moving individuals along a continuum from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. The present ®ndings, as well as much research (e.g., McConahay, 1986; van Dijk, 1984) suggest that such a trajectory is neither linear nor singular in dimension. If racial attitudes exist in di€erent factors, then a training strategy aimed at only one dimension or aspect of racial attitudes might produce sensitivity (or even ``appreciation,'' Baldwin & Hecht, 1995) in only one area. A more complex view of racial attitudes may strengthen diversity training programs, especially those aimed at education, which assumes that ignorance (alone) is the root of most intolerance. The fact that di€erent factors clearly exist, whether one accepts the present structure or one of the others established in research, suggests that strategies aimed at improving racial attitudes should be multifaceted. Speci®cally, some Whites might be very open to interracial interaction or housing, but still oppose interracial romance. One might accept either yet oppose moves which address politics or social structure. Training should focus more on speci®c aspects or dimensions of activity than on addressing attitudes toward a certain group. Up to this point, we have discussed respondents' attitudes in terms of racial attitudes instead of racism. This study has practical implications for the everyday de®nition of racism in that many Whites may avoid individual-level behaviors which exclude based on race, but not see collective measures as racist. Theoretically, one could oppose Armative Action, race-based scholarships, and other equalization measures for philosophical or economic reasons. At the same time, such opposition could be a guise for the desire to hold power. Many authors (e.g., McIntosh, 1998) argue, for example, that Whites in the United States will have to be willing to give up power to other groups for equality, and, thus, healthy interracial relations to exist. What is not as clear yet, is how Whites would do that. Further, if research determines that a lack of equalization programs inherently favors Whites (as Ezorsky, 1991, and others have proposed), then the

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

573

political dimension of this scale could measure attitudes which lead to behaviors (voting, etc.), which are racist in result even if not in intention. Helm's (Helms, 1990; Helms & Carter, 1990) phase approach to identity, combined with the ®ndings here, might be used speci®cally to address racial attitudes. Helms contends that Whites can have di€erent stages of ethnic identity, from contact, characterized by ``satisfaction with racial status quo, oblivious to racism and one's participation in it'' (p. 185) through stages in which one slowly becomes uncomfortable with, and then oppositional to racial inequality. Finally, Whites can reach a stage of autonomy, in which they feel free to ``relinquish the privileges of racism'' and judge themselves and others by internal, rather than racial standards (p. 185; see Phinney, 1990, for a similar model). Helms noted that societal changes, such as the loss of popularity of overt racism, in¯uence a person's stage of identity development and admitted that one person might illustrate attitudes that belong to several stages operating ``in concert'' (p. 188). If one links an understanding of Whiteness on the part of Whites to racial tolerance, then education aimed at modifying Whites' perspectives of their own identity might, in turn, lead to more inclusive attitudes towards other groups. Racial identity and attitudes may also impact the work of counselors (Ottavi, Pope-Davis & Dings, 1994), organizations, and educational institutions (Rowe, Behrens & Leach, 1990). Rowe et al. (1990) propose that Whites within a school or workplace can be at di€erent levels of awareness of their identity and willingness to act on perceived inequities between racial groups. Some perceive no con¯ict; others oppose outright discrimination but also political reforms and `racial' politics. Still others value and promote pluralism in di€erent ways. Perhaps in line with the postmodern view of the self, fragmented and created through sometimes contradictory discourses (Sampson, 1989), the present research suggests that individuals in a training session may not be consistently at a single level, but hold some attitudes which favor integration and, at other levels and in other ways, also hold attitudes which oppose integration, echoing Billig et al.'s (1988) notion of dilemmas. A more far-reaching diversity program might include elements addressing Whites' views on macrosocial issues as well as issues of interpersonal communication and relationship. In sum, if we understand racial attitudes as multi-faceted, we can better direct individual and group-level strategies at addressing each dimension. Just as in surgery, a laser may work better than a skill-saw, so in addressing racism, focused solutions addressing speci®c aspects of racial attitudes may be more e€ective than treating racism as if all racist attitudes were of the same sort.

Acknowledgements Thanks to Dr. Lisa Bradford and Dr. Mark Orbe for their review comments and to Dr. Grant Henning and Jennifer Jones-Corley for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

574

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

Appendix A. Racism items from revised tolerance for human diversity instrument I would not hesitate to date an African American. I would not marry an African American. I feel comfortable talking to African Americans. African American culture has a lot of problems which keep African Americans down. Because of Armative Action, many African Americans have gotten jobs they are not quali®ed for. The government and news media have paid more attention to African Americans than they should. I would not be roommates or housemates with an African American. It's easy to understand the anger of African Americans. I would not be roommates or housemates with a Mexican American. I feel comfortable talking to Mexican Americans. Mexican American culture has a lot of problems which keep Mexican Americans down. It's easy to understand the anger of Mexican Americans. The government and news media have paid more attention to Mexican Americans than they should. I would not marry a Mexican American. I would not hesitate to date a Mexican American. Because of Armative Action, many Mexican Americans have gotten jobs they are not quali®ed for.  Asterisked items were reverse coded; a higher score indicates increased tolerance.

References Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (Eds.) (1982). The authoritarian personality (abridged ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. Allport, G. (1979). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley [Originally published in 1954]. Altman, K. E., & Nakayama, T. K. (1991). Making a critical di€erence: a dicult dialogue. Journal of Communication, 41, 116±128. Appiah, A. (1990). ``Racism'' and ``racisms''. In D. T. Goldberg (Ed.), Anatomy of racism (pp. 3±17). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Baldwin, J. R. (1995). Description, emotion, and power: various European-American perceptions of the uses of the word ``racism''. In Annual Conference of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, Nov.,. Baldwin, J. R. (1996). ``Race'' Ð a sign of the times: European-Americans' constructions of ``race''. In Intercultural Communication Division of the Annual Conference of the Central States Communication Association, St. Paul, MN, April. Baldwin, J. R. (1998). Tolerance/intolerance: a historical and multi-disciplinary view of prejudice. In M. L. Hecht (Ed.), Communicating prejudice (pp. 24±56). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

575

Baldwin, J. R., & Hecht, M. L. (1993). Di€erent is better: conceptualizing and measuring tolerance for human diversity. In Annual Conference of the Speech Communication Association, Miami, Nov. Baldwin, J. R., & Hecht, M. L. (1994). Attitudes toward diversity: a two-sample analysis of a scale of (in)tolerance(s). In The Annual Conference of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, Nov. Baldwin, J. R., & Hecht, M. L. (1995). The layered perspective of cultural (in)tolerance(s): The roots of a multidisciplinary approach. In R. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 59±91). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Banton, M. (1987). Racial theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barker, M. (1981). The new racism. London: Junction Books. Bennett, M. (1986). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In M. P. Paige (Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and applications (pp. 26±69). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Signi®cance tests and goodness of ®t in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588±606. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative ®t indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238± 246. Bierly, M. M. (1985). Prejudice toward contemporary out-groups as a generalized attitude. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 189±199. Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas. Newbury Park: Sage. Bobo, L. (1988). Group con¯ict, prejudice, and the paradox of contemporary racial attitudes. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Pro®les in controversy (pp. 88±114). New York: Plenum. Brislin, R. W. (1991). Prejudice in intercultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (6th ed., pp. 366±370). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bureau of the Census. (1992). Current population reports P-25 (no. 1092). Washington DC: GPO. Buttny, R. (1997). Reported speech in talking race on campus. Human Communication Research, 23, 475±504. Buttny, R., & Williams, P. L. (2000). Demanding respect: The uses of reported speech in discursive constructions of interracial contact. Discourse & Society, 11, 111±135. Byrd, M. L. (1991). Research note on an exploratory investigation of the concept of tolerance toward cultural diversity. In The annual conference of the Speech Communication Association Convention, Atlanta, Nov. Byrd, M. L. (1993). The intracultural communication book. New York: McGraw-Hill. Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1988). Contemporary measures of attitudes towards Blacks. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 48, 107±119. Campbell, A. (1972). White attitudes toward Black people. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS). (1982). The Empire strikes back: Race and racism in 70s Britain. London: Hutchison. Claney, D., & Parker, W. M. (1989). Assessing White racial consciousness and perceived comfort with Black individuals: A preliminary study. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 449±451. Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity in inter-cultural communication: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 94±120). Newbury Park: Sage. Essed, F. (1990). Everyday racism: Reports from women of two cultures. Claremont, CA: Hunter House (C. Ja€eÂ, Trans.). Essed, F. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. Newbury Park: Sage. Ezorsky, G. (1991). Racism and justice: The case for armative action. London: Sage. Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Franklin, R. S. (1991). Shadows of race and class. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gillmore, M. R., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano Jr., R. F., Day, L. E., Moore, M., & Abbott, R. (1991).

576

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

Structure of problem behaviors in preadolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 499±506. Gilroy, P. (1990). One nation under a groove: The cultural politics of `race' and racism in Britain. In D. T. Goldberg (Ed.), Anatomy of racism (pp. 263±282). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Goldberg, D. T. (1990). The social formation for racist discourse. In D. T. Goldberg (Ed.), Anatomy of racism (pp. 295±318). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Goldberg, D. T. (1993). Racist culture: Philosophy and the politics of meaning. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1997). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Hall, S. (1981). The whites of their eyes: Racist ideologies and the media. In G. Bridges & R. Brunt (Eds.), Silver linings: Some strategies for the eighties (pp. 28±52). London: Lawrence & Wishart. Heaven, P., & Furnham, A. (1987). Race prejudice and economic beliefs. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 483±489. Hecht, M. L. (1993). 2002 Ð A research odyssey: toward the development of a communication theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60, 76±82. Hecht, M. L., & Baldwin, J. R. (1998). Layers and holograms: a new look at prejudice. In M. L. Hecht (Ed.), Communicating prejudice (pp. 57±84). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hecht, M. L., Collier, M. J., & Ribeau, S. (1993). African American communication: Ethnic identity and cultural interpretations. Newbury Park: Sage. Helms, J. E. (1990). An update of Helms's White and People of Color Racial Identity Models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. N. Casas, L. A. Suzuki & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multinational counseling (pp. 181±198). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Helms, J. E., & Carter, R. T. (1990). Development of the White Racial Identity Attitude Scale. In J. E. Helms (Ed.), Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 67±80). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Herbst, P. H. (1997). The color of words: An encyclopaedic dictionary of ethnic bias in the United States. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Hunter, J. E., & Cohen (1969). PACKAGE: A system of computer routines for the analysis of correlational data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 697±700. Houston, M. (1997). When Black women talk with White women: why dialogues are dicult. In A. GonzaÂlez, M. Houston & V. Chen (Eds.), Our voices: Essays in culture, ethnicity, and communication (pp. 187±194). Los Angeles: Roxbury. Jackman, M. R., & Crane, M. (1986). ``Some of my best friends are black. . .'': Interracial friendships and Whites' racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 459±486. Jarmon, C. (1980). Racial beliefs among Blacks and Whites: An evaluation of perspectives. Journal of Black Studies, 11, 235±247. Jhally, S., & Lewis, J. (1992). Enlightened racism: The Cosby Show, audiences, and the myth of the American Dream. Boulder: Westview. Jones, J. M. (1972). Prejudice and racism. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Kleinpenning, G., & Hagendoorn, L. (1993). Forms of racism and the cumulative dimension of ethnic attitudes. Social Psychological Quarterly, 56, 21±36. Lampe, P. E. (1982). Interethnic dating: Reasons for and against. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 6, 115±126. Leonard, R., & Locke, D. (1993). Communication stereotypes: Is interracial communication possible? Journal of Black Studies, 23, 332±343. Levinson, D. J. (1982). The study of ethnocentric ideology. In T. W. Adorno, E. Frenkel-Brunswick, D. J. Levinson & R. N. Sanford (Eds.), The authoritarian personality (abridged ed., pp. 102±150). New York: W. W. Norton. Lowy, R. (1991). Yuppie racism: Race relations in the 1980s. Journal of Black Studies, 21, 445±464. MariÂn, G., & Salazar, J. M. (1985). Determinants of hetero- and autostereotypes: Distance, level of contact, and socioeconomic development in seven nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 403±422.

J.R. Baldwin et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 24 (2000) 553±577

577

Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-®t indexes in con®rmatory factor analysis: The e€ect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391±410. McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. S. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 99±125). Orlando: Academic Press. McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 93±107. McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women's studies. In M. L. Andersen & P. H. Collins (Eds.), Race, class and gender: An anthology (pp. 94±105). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Miles, R. (1989). Racism. London: Routledge. Nakayama, T. K., & Martin, J. N. (Eds.) (1999). Whiteness: The communication of social identity. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Noel, P. (Feb. 11, 1992). Are you a racist? To ®nd out, take the new racism quotient test. The Village Voice, pp. 34±35. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1980s (rev. ed.). New York: Routledge. Orbe, M. P. (1994). ``Remember, it's always Whites' Ball': Descriptions of African American male communication. Communication Quarterly, 42, 287±300. Ottavi, T. M., Pope-Davis, D. B., & Dings, J. G. (1994). Relationship between White racial identity attitudes and self-reported multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 149±154. Outlaw, L. (1990). Towards a critical theory of ``race''. In D. T. Goldberg (Ed.), Anatomy of racism (pp. 58±82). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Palmore, E. B. (1990). Ageism: Negative and positive. New York: Springer. Pettigrew, T. F. (1975). Racial discrimination in the United States. New York: Harper & Row. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499±514. Ray, J. J., & Lovejoy, F. H. (1986). The generality of racial prejudice. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 563±564. Rowe, W., Behrens, J. T., & Leach, M. M. (1990). Racial/ethnic identity and racial consciousness: looking back and looking forward. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. N. Casas, L. A. Suzuki & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multinational counseling (pp. 218±235). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Sampson, E. E. (1989). The deconstruction of self. In J. Shotter & K. Gergen (Eds.), Texts of identity (pp. 1±19). Newbury Park: Sage. Schuman, H., Steeh, C., & Bobo, L. (1985). Racial trends in America: Trends and interpretations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Pro®les in controversy (pp. 53±84). New York: Plenum Press. Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1991). Black Americans' views of racial inequality: The dream deferred. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. (1981). The social psychology of minorities. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Human categories and social groups (pp. 309±343). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7±24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Terkel, S. (1990). Race: How Blacks and Whites feel about the American obsession. New York: The Free Press. van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park: Sage. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.