Interracial Perception, Affect, and Behavior

Thomas E. Malloy Tiina Ristikari

Rhode Island College Oxford University

May 2, 2007

Running Head: Interracial Behavior

Address correspondence to Thomas E. Malloy in the Department of Psychology, Rhode

Island College, Providence, RI 02908. This research was supported by a Rhode Island

College faculty research grant.

2

Abstract

Interracial perception, affect, and behavior were studied in two experiments. Study 1

focused on the responses of Black and White men during face to face interactions, and in

Study 2 using the type generations paradigm, Black and White males and females

generated types of persons from their racial in-group or out-group and rated their traits.

The interracial responses of Blacks and Whites varied in face to face encounters and in

the asocial context. In both studies, Blacks differentiated the unique characteristics of

Whites to a greater extent than Whites differentiated the unique characteristics of Blacks.

Blacks uniquely evaluated the quality of social interactions with Whites, whereas Whites

differentiated interaction quality to a lesser extent. Interracial interactions involving

Blacks and Whites appear to be different social psychological situations for each member

because of different interaction goals; perception, affect, and behavior vary as a

consequence.

3

Interracial Perception, Affect, and Behavior

Black and White Americans live in two separate, unequal, and sometimes hostile

“nations” (Hacker, 1992); a situation adumbrated by the 1968 Kerner Commission report

that the United States was “moving toward two societies, one black, one white – separate

and unequal.” During the past 40 years contact between Blacks and Whites in America

has increased as segregation has waned (Sigelman, Bledsoe, Welch, & Combs, 1996).

Unfortunately, insufficient research on the interactions of Blacks and Whites has been

conducted and “fundamental questions remain unanswered about interracial contact in

situations ranging from casual encounters to intense relationships” (Sigelman et al., 1996;

p. 1306-1307). In some of the research that has been conducted there are vexing validity

issues. For example, over twenty years ago, Stephan (1985) lamented that “the

ecological validity of much of the work in this area is low and it remains to be

determined when phenomena ... operate in everyday social interaction” (p. 647).

Stephan’s concern remains relevant today; only a few studies have focused on behavioral

responses of Blacks and Whites during unscripted face to face interactions (e.g., Ickes,

1984; Ickes, Patterson, Rajecki, & Tanford, 1982; Shelton, 2003; Littleford et al., 2005).

We conducted two experiments to extend this work. In the first, interracial

interactions were orchestrated to occur within a “psychologically weak” situation so that

attitudes and dispositions would guide behavior (Snyder & Ickes, 1985). Only men were

included to avoid effects arising in mixed sex dyads (Littleford et al., 2005), and because

social domination of one group by another often entails the subjugation of men in the low

status group by men in the higher status group (Eberhardt & Fiske, 1998; Sidanius &

Pratto, 2001). In the second, we used a type generation paradigm designed for the study

4

of intergroup perceptions (Linville, Fischer, & Yoon, 1996). In Study 2 Black and White

males and females were assigned randomly to an in-group or out-group condition and

generated “types of persons” from that group that were rated on personality traits.

Although these paradigms differ markedly, we expected similar intergroup responses

among Blacks and Whites in terms of trait judgments; converging findings using different

methods would buttress their validity (Albright & Malloy, 2000; Vorauer & Turpie,

2004).

Study 1: Dyadic Interactions of Black and White Men

Stephan and Stephan’s (1985; 2000) integrated threat theory offers a conceptual

analysis of processes that occur in interracial interactions. When interacting with an out-

group member one may experience: (a) negative affect such as anxiety, discomfort, or

embarrassment, (b) threat of being dominated or controlled by the other, (c) fear of being

negatively stereotyped or devalued by the other, and (d) concern with negative

assessment by in-group members. Feeling threatened by an out-group member leads to

negative emotional reactions and diminishes one’s desire to interact with other members

of that group (see Shelton’s (2003) related discussion). Because contact is recognized as

necessary, though insufficient, for easing intergroup tensions (Dovidio, Kawakamui, and

Gaertner, 2002; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000), the importance of studying responses that

preclude or facilitate interracial contact is self evident.

Whites Responses to Blacks

In a seminal study of the social interactions of Blacks and Whites, Ickes (1984)

reported that Whites experienced interactions with Blacks as “more stressful and

uncomfortable” yet displayed higher levels of verbal and non-verbal responsiveness to

5

those partners (e.g. talking, smiling, gazing). In mixed race dyads, Littleford and

colleagues (2005) found that Whites manifested increased physiological arousal (i.e.,

systolic blood pressure) and discomfort when interacting with Black but not Asian

partners. Similarly, Blascovich and his colleagues (Blascovich et al., 2001; Mendes et

al., 2002) found that Whites interacting with a Black confederate showed physiological

responses associated with threat. When presented with Black faces, Whites show

increased activity of the amygdala that indicates an affective response to and evaluation

of a stimulus; White faces precipitate a weaker response (Phelps et al., 2000). Taken

together, this research suggests that interaction with Blacks is a threatening situation for

Whites, both physiologically and psychologically.

Whites are generally inclined to inhibit racial bias because expressed racism is

unacceptable in American society (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998). Yet, a White person may

explicitly reject racial bias but behave in a less friendly manner with a Black partner

because of implicit bias outside of awareness (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson,

2002). When induced to restrict racial prejudice while interacting with a Black person,

Whites experience more negative affect and enjoy the interaction less (Shelton, 2003).

Moreover, interactions with racial minorities appear to induce majority group members to

actively control behavior that communicates discomfort (Dutton & Lake, 1973; Weitz,

1972) that, in turn, depletes cognitive processing ability (Monteith, 1993; Richeson &

Trawalter, 2005). For example, Richeson and Trawalter (2005) manipulated “prejudice

concerns” leading White people to believe that they were more prejudiced than they

thought. Following interaction with a Black confederate they performed less well on the

Stroop color naming task, an effect not observed when interacting with a White

6

confederate. In general, Whites experience discomfort, find the interaction

uncomfortable, and show cognitive decrements when interacting with Blacks.

In an interracial dyad there is a status asymmetry rooted in an arbitrary, social

construal that one member has higher social standing than the other (Sidanius & Pratto,

2001). This construal permeates interracial interactions and we assume that both Blacks

and Whites are cognizant of it; we address this awareness empirically in Study 2. In

dyads with a status asymmetry, the high status member is more behaviorally expressive

than the low status member (Ickes et al., 1982; Miller & Malloy, 2003; Snodgrass, 1992;

Snodgrass, Hecht, & Ploutz-Snyder, 1998), less aware of the other’s perspective (Dovidio

et al., 2002), and less able to recall information about the social interaction and its context

(Frable et al., 1990). Because interracial interactions are stressful (e.g., Blascovich et al.,

2001; Ickes, 1984; Stephan & Stephan, 2000) and majority group members are motivated

to appear unbiased (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998), there are demands on the high status

member to avoid a social faux pas that conveys an objectionable message to a minority

group person. Consequently, attention is focused on the self because of “prejudice

concerns” and is coupled with the active regulation of behavior (Richeson, et al., 2003;

Richeson & Trawalter, 2005) that impairs cognitive processing of a complex stimulus

(e.g., a minority group member). Moreover, because majority group persons have

historically controlled the outcomes of minorities, there is less attention to the other

because reinforcement has not been contingent on the behavior of the other (Fiske, 1993).

In general, a majority group member interacting with a member of a minority

group will regulate behavior in a stressful situation in order to avoid prejudicial

responses. This self regulation impairs performance on subsequent cognitive tasks; we

7

hypothesize that the processing of information about the psychological traits of the other

is also impaired resulting in the use of stereotypes to judge the other. On dimensions

where stereotypes are well known and widely shared (e.g. Black students are not as

intellectually capable as White students), there should be increased stereotyping. The

unfortunate consequence is that these concerns are likely to disrupt behavior that can

reduce intergroup tension (Dovidio et al., 2002; Vorauer & Turpie, 2004).

Blacks Responses to Whites

When a person has characteristics that are statistically unusual and centrally

defining (e.g., a Black skin tone; Eberhardt et al., 2004; Frable et al., 1990) that are

associated with negative characteristics (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001), social stigma is a

consequence (Goffman, 1963; Jones et al., 1984). We have proposed that in an

interracial dyad both members are aware of the devalued status of the minority group

member. An interaction with a majority group member is anxiety provoking because the

low status person must determine if the situation is benign or pernicious (Herek, 1989).

If a majority group partner is perceived as responding in accord with a prevailing

negative stereotype (Steele, 1997; Pinel, 1999), one may disengage from the situation

(Steele & Aronson, 1995) or compensate in order to “disprove prejudice by behaving in

very positive ways” (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; p. 541). Studies of obese women

(Miller, Rothblum, Felicio, & Brand, 1995), gay men (Miller & Malloy, 2003), and

Blacks (Shelton, 2003) support this idea that devalued, low status persons behave in a

manner that creates a positive impression on a higher status partner. Moreover, if one’s

social and material reinforcement has been determined by majority group members, one

8

is should attend carefully to them in order to behave in a manner that maximizes the

likelihood of a positive outcome (Fiske, 1993).

Overall then, in addition to the concern with behaving without prejudice, the

minority group member must determine the relative safety of the situation and should

draw upon a long social learning history of monitoring the higher status other in order to

maximize positive outcomes. Consequently, minority group members should

differentiate the unique characteristics of majority group members.

Individual Differences in Interracial Dyads

Individual differences among Whites in racial bias is associated with frontal

cortex activity in response to Black faces, and with decreased performance on a cognitive

task following an interracial encounter (Richeson, et al., 2003). In the present study we

measured stigma consciousness (Pinel, 1999), an individual difference dimension

concerned with awareness that one is being judged by others in accord with a negative

social stereotype. We also measured social dominance orientation (Pratto, Sidanius,

Stallworth & Malle, 1994), an individual difference dimension concerned with the belief

that there are inherent differences between groups that determine their relative status in

society. As Shelton (2003) has demonstrated, Black men most conscious of being

negatively stereotyped will strive to create a positive social climate, leading their White

partners to like them and judge the interaction with them positively. Therefore, we

predicted that Black men most conscious of being stigmatized would be verbally

responsive to their interaction partners in order to create a positive social climate. Black

men who reject the validity of inherent status differences between Blacks and Whites

were also expected to be consistently responsive verbally to two White partners.

9

Metaperceptions in Interracial Dyads

Metaperceptions of trait judgments. A metaperception is an assessment of how

one is judged by another (Goffman, 1963). National survey data in America show that

Blacks are aware of the prevailing negative stereotypes that Whites hold toward their

group; however, they overestimate the percentage of the White population endorsing

them (Sigelman & Tuch, 1997). A program of research by Vorauer and her colleagues

(Vorauer, Main, & O’Connell, 1998; Vorauer, Hunter, Main, & Roy, 2000; Vorauer &

Kumhyr, 2001) has demonstrated that majority group members spontaneously consider

the negative stereotypes that minority group members have of them, particularly when

there is the potential for evaluation by the lower status person. Further, individual

differences in the subjective importance of racial attitudes among majority group

members related systematically to the use of meta-stereotypes (Vorauer et al., 2000).

Whites, for whom intergroup attitudes were subjectively important, framed imagined

interactions with Aborigines in terms of how they would be evaluated by them. Both

majority and minority group members consider how out-group members judge them;

likely in an attempt to control the course of an intergroup interaction.

In Study 1 we measured metaperceptions of Black and White dyad members.

Recall that majority group members are not expected to differentiate the traits of minority

group partners; we also expect that this will occur with metaperceptions. That is, White

men should predict that minority group partners judge their traits similarly. In contrast,

because of heightened attention to interaction partners Black men are expected to

differentiate the traits of White men; their metaperceptions should also be more

differentiated.

10

Metaperceptions of affect. People also assess how others feel about them, and

we expected that stigma consciousness and acceptance of inherent group status

differences would be related to metaperceptions of positive affect. Both Blacks and

Whites who are the most conscious of being stigmatized by an out-group member

because of their race were expected to predict less liking by interaction partners.

Furthermore, Blacks who accept the inherently lower status of their group (i.e., higher

SDO scores) should predict less liking by White interaction partners.

11

Method

Participants

Thirty four American men of European ancestry (i.e. self identified as “White”)

and 34 American men of African ancestry (i.e. self identified as “Black”) participated in

the study. Participants were undergraduate students recruited on an urban college

campus in Rhode Island. They were informed that they would be interacting with two

people with an ethnic background different from their own. All participants were at least

18 years of age, and were given a $15 honorarium for their time.

Procedures and Measures

Each experimental session included 2 Black and 2 White men; each of the 17

groups was constituted randomly. Participants were escorted to private locations to

complete an informed consent document and individual difference measures. The

Stigma Consciousness Scale was adapted for Black and White participants (Pinel, 1999).

For example, one item was: “Stereotypes about Blacks/Whites have not affected me

personally.” All men completed a measure of Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto,

Sidanius, Stallworth & Malle, 1994). In two separate laboratory rooms, dyads were

formed that included a Black and a White man. The experimenter told the participants

“This is a getting-to-know you situation. After I turn on the camcorder, please introduce

your selves to one another, and talk to each other for 20 minutes; then I will return.” The

experimenter then left. After 20 minutes elapsed, the experimenter returned and shut off

the recording device. Following the interaction, participants were separated and

responded to questions about the interaction and their interaction partner. Specifically,

they rated (using 10 point scales 1 – 10) their partner on twenty five bipolar trait

12

dimensions with five traits serving as indicators of each of the Big Five personality

factors (John, 1990). Extroversion (Factor 1) was indicated by quiet-talkative,

introverted-extroverted, no sense of humor-sense of humor, unsociable-sociable, timid-

outspoken; Agreeableness (Factor 2) was indicated by argumentative-good natured,

discourteous-courteous, uncooperative-cooperative, disagreeable-agreeable, inflexible-

flexible; Conscientiousness (Factor 3) was indicated by unambitious-ambitious, lazy-

hardworking, academically irresponsible-academically responsible, not studious-studious,

unmotivated-motivated; Emotional Stability (Factor 4) was indicated by insecure-secure,

emotionally unstable-emotionally stable, nervous-at ease, anxious-calm, unconfident-

confident, and Intelligence (Factor 5) was indicated by ordinary-creative, down to earth-

imaginative, narrow interests-broad interests, unintelligent-intelligent, uncultured-

cultured. These trait items were arranged in a random order. Using the same scale,

participants also made predictions about how they were judged by their interaction

partner and these are the measures of metaperceptions.

Participants also rated their affect for their interaction partner. They responded to

the following questions: “How much did you enjoy this interaction,” “How interesting

was this interaction for you.” How comfortable were you in this interaction,” How much

do you like your interaction partner,” “Do you think this person could be your friend,”

“How similar do you think your partner is to you.” Responses were made on 10 point

scales (1-10) bounded by adjectives relevant for each question (e.g. uncomfortable-

comfortable). Participants also predicted their partner’s affective response to them

(“How much do you think your interaction partner liked you?”) and the partner’s

13

perceived similarity to the participant (“How similar do you think your interaction partner

thinks you are to him?”).

Verbal and non-verbal behaviors during the interactions were independently

coded by two research assistants (one White and one Black) from the videotapes using

the coding system developed by Duncan and Fiske (1977) for research on face to face

interaction. Behaviors coded included speaking time, short back channels (e.g., hmm,

huh), long back channels (e.g., I see), questions asked, smiles, and laughs. Inter-rater

reliabilities (r’s) were .86 or greater for all behaviors coded.

Results

Research Design and Statistical Analysis

The asymmetric block design was used in this study (see Table 1) because it is

well suited for studies of interracial dyads. Same race interactions did not occur because

this would have been too demanding on participants. The data were analyzed using the

social relations model (Kenny, 1994) that partitions an individual’s response into effects

called perceiver, target, and relationship when modeling perception. The variance of an

effect is used to quantify different dyadic phenomena. Considering perceptions, the

perceiver variance measures the tendency to judge multiple partners similarly (i.e., failure

to differentiate) on a dimension, although they vary, and is termed assimilation. The

target variance measures others’ agreement when judging an individual and is termed

consensus. The relationship variance measures if judges uniquely differentiate

interaction partners after controlling for perceiver and target effects and is termed

uniqueness. For behavior different labels are used; actor variance quantifies behavioral

consistency across interaction partners, partner variance quantifies the consistency of

14

responses elicited from multiple partners, and relationship variance quantifies unique

behavioral responses of one dyad member to another (Malloy et al. 2005).

Means and Variance Components in Trait Judgments and Metaperceptions

Trait judgments. Mean judgments of interaction partners were not reliably

different for any of the five factors with Blacks’ judgments ranging from 7.94 to 8.50 and

Whites’ ranging from 8.07 to 8.68. However, there were notable differences in the

variance components. Among White men, all five perceiver variances in trait judgments

were reliably different from zero (p < .05) and ranged from .29 (Extroversion) to .45

(Intelligence) with a mean of .34, whereas among Black men none of the perceiver

variances differed from zero with a mean of .05. As predicted, the perceiver variances

revealed that White men judged their Black partners similarly on personality factors.

Moreover, the largest perceiver variance (.45) was observed in judgments of intelligence

where strong stereotypes operate. These results show that White men differed among

themselves when judging the same two Black partners and each judged their two partners

similarly; this pattern was particularly strong on factor V (intelligence).

There was no evidence for consensus in interracial trait judgments. No target

variance component was reliably different from zero for Black or White men; that is,

there was no consensual agreement when judging the traits of out-group partners. There

was evidence that men made unique trait judgments of specific partners and this was

more pronounced among Black men; relationship variance components were statistically

reliable for all five factors with a mean of .46. Among White men, four relationship

variance components were reliably different from zero with a mean of .27; about 59% of

the comparable estimate among Blacks. These results are in Table 2.

15

As predicted, White men judged the traits of their two Black partners similarly,

whereas there was no evidence for assimilation among Black men. Moreover, Black men

differentiated the unique traits of their two White partners on all trait factors, whereas

unique evaluation of partners’ traits was weaker among White men. Also as predicted,

White men showed the strongest assimilation and the weakest unique differentiation of

their partners on Factor 5 (intelligence) where there are prevailing stereotypes about

Blacks. In interracial dyads Whites judged interaction partners using stereotypes whereas

Blacks differentiated their partners’ traits.

Metaperceptions. Metaperception is a prediction of how one is judged by an

interaction partner and, like trait judgments, may be partitioned into perceiver, target, and

relationship variance components. As seen in Table 3, Blacks predicted that their White

partners rated them significantly higher on conscientiousness compared with comparable

predictions by Whites. Mean metaperceptions on the remaining factors were equivalent.

Considering the variance components, among Blacks four perceiver variances were

reliably different from zero (p < .05) and ranged from .15 to .44 with a mean of .33; this

finding was not consistent with our prediction. Among Whites all perceiver variances

were statistically reliable and ranged from .41 to .59 with a mean of .51. The

relationship variance components in metaperceptions for Black men ranged from .12 to

.47 with a mean of .22 and all but one (Factor 4) was reliably different from zero.

Among Whites, relationship variances ranged from .04 to .17 with a mean of .10 and only

two were reliably different from zero (Factors 2 and 3). As predicted, White men

showed greater assimilation in their predictions of how Black men judged them, and did

not think that their partners would judge them uniquely. Black men, on the other hand,

16

predicted that their White partners judged their traits more uniquely, although there was

also evidence of assimilation.

Means and Variance Components in Dyadic Behavior

The mean levels of verbal and non-verbal behavior were generally equal for Black

and White men (see Table 4). One exception was the short back channel variable where

Whites showed reliably more short verbal responses to their partners than did Blacks

(t(16) 4.42, p < .05) and replicates the Ickes (1984) finding. In Table 4 are the variance

components for dyadic behavior. Among Blacks, actor variance components were

reliably different from zero (p < .05) for three behaviors (short back channels, long back

channels, and laughs). Among White men, none of the actor variance components in

behavior were reliably different from zero. Note that large variance components that are

statistically unreliable result when there is substantial variation among the estimates for

different groups (i.e., sampling error). None of the partner variance components for

behavior differed reliably from zero for either Black or White men.

Individual Differences and Actor and Partner Effects in Verbal Behavior

Participants’ scores on the stigma consciousness and social dominance scales

were correlated with their actor effect estimates in speaking time and a back channel

construct with two indicators (short and long back channels). As predicted, Black men

who were the most conscious of being stigmatized showed consistently more speaking

time with their two White partners (r = .77, p < .05) and consistently less back channel

responsiveness to them (r = -.45, p < .05). Black men who rejected inherent status

differences between groups (i.e., were low on Social Dominance Orientation), were

consistently higher in speaking time with their White partners (r = -.55, p < .05) and

17

displayed consistently more back channel responsiveness to them (r = -.83, p < .05).

Because there was insufficient actor variance among White men in the speaking time and

the back channel constructs equivalent correlations were not estimated; they would be

zero. These results are in Table 5.

Means and Variance Components in Interaction Quality and Affect

Means in Table 6 show that Black and White men enjoyed their interactions

(identical means of 8.26), liked their interaction partners (7.62 and 7.73, respectively),

and predicted that their partners liked them (7.06 and 6.68, respectively). However, the

variance components revealed different affective reactions for Blacks and Whites.

Perceiver variances. Among Whites there was statistically reliable (p < .05)

perceiver variance in two indicators of the quality of interaction factor (enjoy at .49 and

interesting at .50), on two indicators of the affect factor (liking at .37 and could be friends

with at .60), and on both indicators of the metaperception (MP) of affect factor (MP

liking at .42 and MP similarity at .43). Within groups, the two White men differed when

rating the quality of their interactions and their affect for their Black partners and

evaluated them similarly. White men also showed individual differences and consistency

when predicting the affect felt toward them by their Black partners. Black men, on the

other hand, showed much less consistency when rating the quality of interactions, affect,

and MP of affect following interactions with their two White partners. Not one perceiver

variance was reliably different from zero.

Target variances. White partners did not elicit consensual judgments regarding

the quality of interactions, affect, or MP of affect from Black interactions partners and 7

of 8 target variance components for indicators of these constructs were zero. Black

18

partners were consensually differentiated by Whites in terms of friendship potential (.18)

and on MP for liking (.30). Overall, Blacks did not agree when judging the quality of

their interactions with the same White partners, their affect for those partners , or when

predicting how those White partners felt toward them (i.e., MP of affect), whereas Whites

did agree on these dimensions when evaluating Black partners.

Relationship variance. Blacks uniquely evaluated the quality of their interaction,

affect, and predictions of affect their White partners felt toward them. Considering the

factor variances, the relationship variance components for interaction quality, affect, and

MP of affect were .53, .46, and .43, respectively for Blacks, whereas the equivalent

estimates for Whites were .19, .22, and .10.

Overall as predicted, White men evaluated the quality of their social interactions

similarly and reported similar affect for different partners. They also predicted that their

partners felt similar affect for them. However, Black men showed unique, more

differentiated evaluations of specific White partners on these dimensions. As was seen

for trait perceptions, White men did not differentiate their affect for specific Black

partners, or the quality of their interactions with them.

Individual Differences and Target Effects on Interaction Quality and Affect

Participants’ scores on Stigma Consciousness and Social Dominance were

correlated with their target effect scores on the quality of interaction and affect factors.

These correlations index the relationship between one’s standing on the individual

difference dimensions and consensual judgments of interaction quality and affect for that

person by interaction partners. Interactions with Black men who were the most conscious

of racial stigma were judged by their White partners as being of higher quality (r = .69,

19

p < .05) and they were liked more (r = .72, p < .05). Black men most concerned with

being negatively stereotyped successfully created a positive social climate presumably to

counteract this potential. Interactions with Black men who were more accepting of

inherent status differences between groups were consensually judged as lower in quality

(r = -.29, p < .05) and were liked less (r = -.41, p < .05) by their White partners. Because

there was insufficient partner variance on the quality of interaction and affect constructs

for White men, equivalent estimates were not be produced; they would be zero

Discussion

The face to face interactions of Black and White men are not equivalent social

psychological situations. Both enter the interaction with anxiety and mistrust and each

has a different set of interaction goals. The Black member is concerned with safety,

stereotyping, and the outcome of the interaction; the White man surely has similar

concerns but also wishes to avoid behavior that communicates racial bigotry. Our results

confirm that Black men most concerned with racial stereotyping respond with

consistently higher levels of verbal behavior that communicates responsiveness to and

interest in a White partner. The traits of White men were uniquely differentiated and

affective responses were unique as well. Whites, who are known to show decrements on

a complex cognitive task following interaction with a Black ((Richeson, et al., 2003;

Richeson & Trawalter, 2005), also fail to differentiate the unique characteristics of Black

social interaction partners and emotional responses to them during 20 minute face to face

interactions.

Study 2: Variation and Covariation in Interracial Judgments

20

A basic finding of Study 1 was that Blacks differentiated Whites whereas Whites

tended to judge their Black partners similarly. However, this conclusion is potentially

limited because same race trait judgments were not collected because of the unreasonable

demands that would have been be placed on participants. Consequently, one could argue

that Whites’ lack of differentiation of Blacks is not restricted to that particular group but

characterizes Whites’ trait judgments in general. Study 1 was also limited because only

males participated thereby restricting the generality of the findings. Study 2 was

designed so that in-group and out-group trait judgments of Blacks and Whites could be

studied, and also included males and females.

Trait Judgments of In-Group and Out-Group Members

In-group judgments are often characterized by heterogeneity; individuals make

more differentiated judgments of other in-group members. Out-group judgments are

often characterized by homogeneity; individuals fail to recognize the differences among

out-group members. These findings are generally reliable (Brewer & Brown, 1998;

Mullen & Hu, 1989). Linville and her colleagues (Linville, Fischer, & Yoon, 1996)

extended this logic and introduced a hypothesis called out-group covariation bias stating

“Because people tend to be less familiar with their out-group, they tend to perceive

greater covariation among the features of out-group members” (p. 423). In a series of

studies the out-group covariation hypothesis was supported (Linville et al, 1996; Linville

& Fischer, 1998; 2004). We used Linville and colleagues’ type generation paradigm

(Linville et al., 1996) because it affords a high level of experimental control, is designed

for studying in-group and out-group judgments, does so without placing excessive

demands on participants, and produces data directly relevant to the lingering theoretical

21

question from Study 1. Because this paradigm does not involve face to face interactions,

a pattern of results consistent with those of Study 1 would buttress the validity of those

empirical findings (Vorauer & Turpie, 2004).

Estimation of Out-group Covariation Bias

In a study of out-group covariation bias members of a group (e.g. college

students) are assigned to an in-group (college students) or an out-group (persons aged 65-

70) condition. Participants then list at least two, and not more than ten, "types of

persons" within that population; each type generated is rated on a set of traits.

Familiarity with the in-group or the out-group is measured by asking participants to

indicate how many people from the category they are acquainted with, how many

members they know well, and by listing the first names of specific people from the

category they know personally.

Linville and colleagues’ strategy for estimating out-group covariation bias begins

with a type by trait matrix for each judge. So for example, if a judge generated 5 types of

out-group members, and rated each type on 25 trait dimensions there would be a 5 x 25

matrix for this judge. Each individual’s data matrix is used to compute inter-correlations

among traits with person types as the unit of analysis. Then, the average of the absolute

values of the lower diagonal elements of this inter-correlation matrix of trait ratings

within judge are computed yielding | R |. Additionally, the signed lower diagonal

elements of the matrix of inter-correlations among traits are averaged yielding R. The

| R | and R values are then averaged across judges.

We have departed from this strategy for two reasons. First, when two types of

persons are generated the intra-individual correlations just described must equal +1.00 or

22

-1.00. Second, when aggregating correlations within and across judges they should first

be transformed to Fisher’s z scores, then averaged, and then transformed back to

correlations. In this study judges rated the out-group or in-group types generated on the

same 25 traits used in Study 1. For each individual we computed an average of the five

indicators for each of the Big Five factors across types, and then computed inter-

correlations of factor means using judge as the unit of analysis. This circumvented the

constraint imposed in the two type case. In addition, we derived a variance component

analysis, described below, that yields more detailed information about the nature of in-

group and out-group judgments.

Variance Components in Judgments of Types

Consider a person's judgments of multiple types from a social category on

multiple trait dimensions (e.g., a college student's judgment of a "spry and active 75 year

old" and a “70 year old grandmother" on 5 different trait factors). Each judge produces a

type by trait matrix of rating data. An analysis is used that estimates multiple,

psychologically distinct variance components in the rating data. A judge’s rating of a

category type (t) on a personality factor (p) yielding Xtp may be represented by:

Xtp = + t + p + tp + (Equation 1)

Equation 1 is an idiographic (i.e., within person) model of an individual’s judgment of a

category subtype on a trait dimension. The term is the grand mean of ratings across

types and traits that quantifies the perceiver’s use of the rating scale and controls this

effect. The term t is the effect of the category type on an individual's rating, p is the

effect of a trait factor on an individual's rating of the type, tp is the type by trait factor

interaction effect, and is error of measurement.

23

Once the type, trait, and type x trait interaction effects (i.e., the terms of Equation

1) have been estimated within judge, the variances of these components may be

computed. These variances quantify the effect of category types, personality factors, and

type by factor interactions on an individual's ratings of category members. These

variance components have distinct theoretical meaning. Category type variance (t2)

quantifies the differentiation of the types generated on a set of trait factors. Personality

factor variance (p2) quantifies differences among the trait factors when rating the set of

types generated. The type x factor variance (tp2) quantifies the unique ratings of specific

types on specific trait factors. The null hypothesis tested is that a variance component

equals zero. Because the number of types generated can vary by judge, variance

components were weighted by the number of types minus one. In this particular study,

the type and trait variance components are of theoretical interest. Once the variance

components within persons are computed, they can then be aggregated across persons to

estimate population parameters.

Hypotheses

Although males and females were included in the sample, we did not anticipate

gender of judge effects and our hypotheses reflect this assumption. We anticipated that

participants would be more familiar with in-group than out-group persons, and would

generate more in-group than out-group types. Among Whites we anticipated more

variance in judgments of White types than of Black types. Because our Black

participants have a great deal of exposure to Whites given the demography of Rhode

Island, we expected equal variance in judgments of Black and White types generated

(Linville et al., 1996). We also expected that Whites would show stronger covariation

24

bias when judging Black types in comparison to White types. Again because of high

levels of exposure to Whites, covariation bias was expected to be equivalent among

Blacks when judging Black and White types.

Method

Participants

Participants were 54 American undergraduate students recruited at an urban

campus in Providence, Rhode Island; those in Studies 1 and 2 were from the same

population. Twenty eight individuals (11 males and 17 females) identified themselves as

having European ancestry (i.e., White) and 26 individuals (13 males and 13 females)

identified themselves as having African ancestry (i.e., Black). All participants were 18

years of age or older and were given a $10.00 honorarium for their time.

Procedures and Measures

Using the Linville et al. (1996) type generation paradigm, participants were

informed that “we are interested in seeing what traits describe different types of people.”

Black and White participants were assigned randomly to an in-group or an out-group

condition and were told “We’d like you to think about the types of people that make up

the group of Black/White people in America.” Participants were instructed to think about

a “type of person” from the target group, write a description for that type of person (e.g.,

a pre-med major, a popular person, an athlete), and then rate the traits of that type of

person. Participants generated a least two types of persons with an upper limit of 10

types. Ratings of types were made on the twenty five bipolar trait dimensions with five

traits serving as indicators of each of the Big Five personality factors, as in Study 1.

These traits were arranged in a random order. Fourteen Black participants were assigned

25

to the White target group and 12 were assigned to the Black target group. Twelve Whites

were assigned to the White target group and 16 were assigned to the Black target group.

After the trait ratings of types were completed, participants responded to open

ended measures of familiarity with the target group. One measure was “Approximately

how many Black/White people would you consider acquaintances of yours?” Another

asked “Approximately how many Black/White people do you know well?” Following

this measure a research assistant said “Within three minutes, list the names of specific

Black/White people that you know personally (first name only is permitted as long as you

differentiate individuals if they have the same first name) in the space below.” A blank

81/2 in. by 11 in. paper was available for writing these names during the 3 minute period.

Participants then reported their “general feelings, attitudes, and thoughts about

Black and White people.” Participants rated both Blacks and Whites on these measures.

They were “How much do you like Black/White people? How likely could you be

friends with a Black/White person? How similar do you think you are to Black/White

people? How similar are Black/White people’s interests to your interests? How do you

perceive the status of Black/White people within society? How do you think society as a

whole views the status of Black/White people? How do you think Black people perceive

the status of Black/White people? How do you think White people perceive the status of

Black/White people? How do you think Black people perceive their status in comparison

to the status of Black/White people? How do you think White people perceive their

status in comparison to the status of Black/White people? Responses to these questions

were made on 10 point (1-10) scales with high scores indicating more liking, more

26

likelihood of friendship, greater similarity, very similar interests, and high absolute and

relative status.

Results

Gender Effects

Two factor (judge race x judge gender) ANOVA did not reveal any main or

interaction effects on the number of types generated with F’s (1,50) ranging from .22 to

.50 with all p’s > .05. Two factor MANOVA (judge race x judge gender) was computed

on the vector of five personality factor means and did not reveal any main or interaction

effects with F’s (5,46) ranging from .11 to 2.04 with all p’s > .05. Two factor

MANOVA (judge race x judge gender) was computed on the vector of standard

deviations for each of the five factors (based on five indicators) and did not reveal any

main or interaction effects with F’s (5,46) ranging from .50 to 1.01 with all p’s > .05.

Two factor MANOVA (judge race x judge gender) was computed on the vector of

acquaintance measures and did not reveal any main or interaction effects with F’s (3,47)

ranging from .29 to .95 with all p’s > .05. And finally, two factor (judge race x judge

gender) ANOVA was computed with the weighted type variance as the dependent

measure and no main or interaction effects were found with F’s (1,50) ranging from .04

to .10 and all p’s > .05. The same analysis treating the weighted factor variance as the

dependent measure also failed to yield any reliable effect with F’s (1,50) ranging from

.09 to 1.23 with all p’s > .05. Given these null results gender will no longer be

considered and all findings that follow generalize to males and females.

Familiarity with the In- and Out-Group

27

Greater familiarity with one’s in-group was anticipated and was confirmed.

MANOVA was computed treating the acquaintance measures (acquaintances, know well,

and names generated) as a vector of dependent measures with judge race and target race

as between subjects factors. A statistically reliable interaction was observed (F(3,47) =

12.46, p < .001) with a partial eta squared of .44. Blacks and Whites reported more in-

group (means of 137.5 and 118.17, respectively) than out-group acquaintances (means of

14.89 and 4.19, respectively). Blacks and Whites also reported that the number of in-

group members known well (means of 43.92 and 37.17, respectively) was greater than

the number of out-group members known well (means of 12.58 and 1.88, respectively).

Finally, Blacks and Whites generated more names of in-group (means of 24.00 and

30.75, respectively) than out-group (means of 15.31 and 5.75, respectively) members

known personally. These data also show that Blacks have more familiarity with Whites

than Whites have with Blacks.

Number of Types Generated

The number of types generated was a dependent measure in a 2 (Black or White

judge) by 2 (Black or White target group) ANOVA. No main effects were observed, but

as predicted there was a statistically reliable interaction (F(1,50) = 5.77, p = .02, d = .68)

showing that Blacks generated more Black than White types (means of 5.67 and 4.57,

respectively), and that Whites generated more White than Black types (means of 5.92 and

3.63, respectively). The partial eta squared for this interaction was .19.

Analysis of Variance Components

Type Variance. Planned contrasts were used to test the directional hypothesis that

Whites would show more differentiation of the traits of the White types than of the Black

28

types. An independent sample t test was computed for Whites’ judgments of the Black

and White types generated with each person’s weighted, unstandardized type variance

component as the dependent measure. As predicted, Whites ratings of Whites showed

reliably (t (26) = 2.06, p = .025, d = .81) more variance among the White types generated

(αt2 = 105.94) than among the Black types generated (αt

2 = 36.75); in fact, the type

variance component was 2.88 times greater for White than Black types (see Table 9).

Also as expected, Blacks equally differentiated the White (αt2 = 78.49) and Black (αt

2 =

65.98) types generated (t (24) = .31, p = .31, d = .13). Analyses of the unweighted type

variance components yielded an identical pattern of results.

Factor variance. We did not anticipate differences in weighted factor variance

for Blacks and Whites when judging the in-group or out-group types generated. This

variance component is primarily a measure of peoples’ intuitive sense of how traits vary

in the general population. No reliable difference in factor variance was observed among

Blacks when rating the Black (p2 = 14.68) or White (p

2 = 8.90) types generated (t(24) =

1.01, p = .32, d = .41). Likewise, among Whites there was no reliable difference in factor

variance when rating the Black (p2 = 8.05) or White (p

2 = 8.50) types generated (t(26) =

.12, p = .91, d = .05). Analyses of the unweighted factor variance components yielded an

identical pattern of results.

Acquaintance, Type, and Factor Variance

An acquaintance construct was formed by averaging the standardized

acquaintance measures. This construct was then correlated with the type and factor

variance components with individual as unit of analysis. Among Whites in the in-group

and out-group conditions, correlations were r = -.08 and r = .11 (p’s > .05) respectively

29

for the type variance component. Acquaintance was not reliably related to variation

among the types generated for Whites’ in-group or out-group judgments. Among Blacks

the equivalent correlations were r = .56 (p = .06) and r = .29 (p > .05) respectively, and

showed that acquaintance was related only to variation among the Black types generated

by Black judges. In terms of personality factor variance, the correlation between

acquaintance and factor variance was r = -.01 and r = .12 for Whites’ in-group and out-

group judgments, respectively. Among Blacks the equivalent correlations were r = .24 (p

> .05) and r = .66 (p = .01) respectively, and showed that acquaintance was related to

variation among the personality factors only when Blacks rated White types.

Covariation in Ratings of Types

Blacks and Whites rated the in-group or out-group types generated on five

indicators of each of the Big Five factors, and factor means within judges were computed.

Then, treating judge as the unit of analysis, inter-correlations of factor means were

computed for the in-group and out-group conditions. The 10 correlations within each of

the experimental conditions were first converted to Fisher’s z’s, the z’s were averaged,

and then the average z was transformed to an average correlation. As anticipated, among

Whites there was greater covariation (i.e., less differentiation) in ratings of the Black

types (average r = .81) than in ratings of the White types (average r = .60). Among

Blacks there was approximately equivalent covariation in ratings of the Black types

(average r = .65) and the White types generated (average r = .69).

Affect, Similarity, and Status of the In-group and the Out-group

We also assessed affect for, similarity to, and perceived status of the in-group and

the out-group. Black and White participants (a between subjects variable) rated both

30

their in-group and their out-group on affect, similarity, and social status measures

(repeated measures), and mixed model ANOVAs were computed.

Judge race effects. A marginal race of judge main effect was observed with

F (1,52) = 3.83, p = .06, d = .54; Blacks reported higher mean liking of Blacks and

Whites (8.04) than that reported by Whites (7.11). No other reliable judge race effects

were observed.

Target race effects. A statistically reliable effect of the race of the target group

was observed on ratings of the likelihood that one could be friends with a Black (mean of

8.92) or a White (mean of 9.12) person (F(1,52) = 10.86, p = .002, d = .91). There was

also a reliable race of target group effect on perceived status (F(1,52) = 10.74, p = .002, d

= .91); as expected, both Blacks and Whites believe that Whites have higher status

(mean of 7.66) than Blacks (mean of 6.19). Furthermore, both Blacks and Whites

believe that “society as a whole” judges Whites to have higher status (mean of 8.29) than

Blacks (mean of 4.91) with F(1,52) = 41.82, p < .001, d = 1.79. On a measure asking

participants to rate how they think Whites’ perceive the status of Blacks and how Blacks’

perceive the status of Whites, there was a reliable race of target group main effect. Both

Blacks and Whites agreed that Blacks are perceived by Whites as having lower status

(mean of 4.42), and that Whites are perceived by Blacks as having higher status (mean of

6.75) with F(1,52) = 21.98, p < .001, d = 1.30.

Judge race by target race interaction. Blacks and Whites both reported greater

similarity to their in-group (means of 7.27 and 8.11, respectively) than their out-group

(means of 6.42 and 6.11, respectively) with F(1,52) = 9.23, p = .004, d = .84. Similarly,

Blacks and Whites indicated that they share more similar interests with their in-group

31

(means of 6.92 and 7.64, respectively) than with their out-group (means of 6.39 and 6.00,

respectively) with F(1,52) = 8.04, p =.007, d = .79.

Discussion

Study 2 indicated that Blacks and Whites are more familiar with, perceive greater

similarity, and share more common interests with their in-groups. In terms of status,

participants reported that they personally perceive Whites as having higher status than

Blacks, and that society as a whole shares this perception. Consequently, when Black

and White people encounter or think about one another they do so with a shared

assessment of their relative status. Overall, acquaintance was not consistently related to

differentiation of the out-group types generated on the personality factors for Blacks or

Whites. Acquaintance was positively related to differentiation of the types generated

(i.e., t2) when Blacks rated Black types, and to differentiation of the personality factors

(i.e., p2

) when Blacks rated White types. Among Whites, acquaintance with Whites or

Blacks was unrelated to differentiation of the types or their traits.

As expected, people generated more in-group than out-group types. However, the

variance among the types generated on personality traits was greater when Whites rated

Whites than when Whites rated Blacks. Among Blacks however, the race of the target

group did not significantly impact variation among the types generated. There was

evidence of covariation in Blacks’ and Whites’ trait ratings of in-group and out-group

types, yet this was greater in Whites’ ratings of Black types (average r = .81) than in the

other three experimental conditions with correlations ranging from r = .60 to r = .69.

Thus, both the variance component analysis and the average inter-correlations of trait

32

ratings show that Whites differentiate the traits of Whites to a greater extent than they

differentiate the traits of Blacks.

General Discussion

The dyadic interactions of Black and White men offered the unique opportunity

to study face to face interracial responses. Members of both groups are concerned with

how they are perceived and how they will be treated by members of the out-group

(Shelton, 2003; Shelton & Richeson, 2005; Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Stephan et al.,

2002; Vorauer, et al., 2000; Vorauer & Kumhyr, 2001; Vorauer, Main, & O’Connell,

1998). Moreover, Study 2 confirmed that they are mutually aware of stereotypes

regarding their relative status. Institutional racism in America has led to stigmatization of

Blacks; particularly the men who have experienced disproportionate adverse

consequences in society (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). According to Crocker et al., (1998),

“one of the most interesting, and least understood or researched areas related to social

stigma concerns the dynamics of interaction between stigmatized and nonstigmatized

individuals” (p. 538). Our focus on face to face encounters of Black and White men was

designed to fill this empirical void, while also responding to calls for heightened realism

and ecological validity in research on intergroup relations (e.g., Ickes, 1984; Littleford et

al., 2005; Stephan, 1985). In two experiments using very different research paradigms

we documented systematic differences in the interracial responses of Blacks and Whites.

Generalized and Dyadic Interracial Trait Perceptions

We anticipated that White men would show stronger perceiver effects than Black

men in interracial trait judgments, and that Black men would show stronger relationship

effects than White men in these judgments. This prediction was derived from theoretical

33

analyses of interpersonal processes in dyads with a status (Frable et al., 1990; Shelton &

Richeson, 2005) or power asymmetry (Fiske, 1993), or in cases where stigmatized and

non-stigmatized persons interact (Crocker et al., 1998; Miller & Malloy, 2003). These

theoretical analyses converge and suggest that in dyads with a status asymmetry, the

lower status person will attend carefully to the higher status person in an attempt to detect

their thoughts, feelings, and behavioral intentions. This heightened attention functions to

determine the safety of the situation (Miller & Malloy, 2003), to monitor if the interaction

is proceeding comfortably rather than in accord with negative stereotypes regarding one’s

group (Crocker et al., 1998; Pinel, 1999; Richeson, 2003), and to determine the likely

outcome of the interaction (Fiske, 1993). The high status person, on the other hand, is

predicted to be more concerned with avoiding any hint of racial bias and directs more

attention to regulation of behavior thereby reducing attention to the other. Such prejudice

concerns are known to impair cognitive processing ability among Whites following

interaction with Blacks (Richeson & Trawalter, 2005); these data suggest an impact on

processing of information about the other during a face to face interaction. In general,

Whites experience discomfort and show cognitive decrements when interacting with

Blacks both during and after the interaction.

The results displayed in Table 2 showing that Whites’ perceiver effects were

much stronger than those of Blacks support these theoretical predictions. In fact, our

findings are consistent with rather well established conclusions regarding the use of

implicit personality theories when judging out-groups. Whites’ interpersonal perceptions

of Blacks during a social interaction were “dominated far more by what the judge brings

to it than by what he takes in during it” (Gage & Cronbach, 1955, p. 420). Among

34

Blacks, however, not a single perceiver variance component in interracial trait judgments

was reliably different from zero; lower status dyad members did not perceive their two

higher status interaction partners as having similar traits. Rather, and as predicted

theoretically, Blacks reliably differentiated the traits of their two White interaction

partners; moreover all relationship variance components in trait judgments were reliably

different from zero. Although Whites’ judgments of Blacks were determined most

strongly by perceiver effects, there was also some evidence of differentiation of their

Black partners’ unique traits.

We predicted that on trait dimensions where strong, widely shared stereotypes

regarding Blacks exist that perceiver variance among Whites should be the strongest and

relationship variance should be the weakest. Factor Five (Intelligence) is a trait

dimension on which Blacks are stereotyped negatively and this view of Blacks is widely

shared by Whites. Among Whites, the perceiver variance component on this factor was

the largest (.45) relative to the other personality factors, and the relationship variance was

the weakest (.09); a pattern consistent with our prediction.

A similar pattern of results emerged in Study 2. Both the variance component

analysis and the average inter-correlations supported the hypothesis that Whites do not

differentiate Blacks to the extent that they differentiate Whites. Because Study 2 did not

involve face to face interactions there was no concern with being stereotyped or with

stereotyping the other; this shows that similar social cognitive processes were operating

in the interpersonal and asocial contexts. In the asocial context, one’s differentiation of

the members of a group is hypothesized to be determined by familiarity with the target

group (Linville et al., 1996). In 2005 in Rhode Island, Whites outnumbered Blacks by 14

35

to 1. Although our participants were more familiar with members of their own ethnic

group, Blacks were more familiar with Whites than Whites were with Blacks. Given the

relative differences in base rates, Blacks are much more likely to interact with Whites and

directly experience the variability in their traits. Our data were partially supportive of

this; greater acquaintance with Whites was associated with variation among the trait

factors in Blacks’ out-group ratings in Study 2. However, and contrary to this exposure

hypothesis, acquaintance was unrelated to variation among the types generated for

Blacks’ or Whites’ out-group judgments. Yet the level of exposure many Whites have to

Blacks may be insufficient to counter the use of stereotypes; consequently reliance on

social stereotypes when judging this out-group may be an efficient cognitive process.

Research is warranted that determines the amount and type of exposure to an out-group

that reduces reliance upon stereotypes.

Metaperceptions in Interracial Judgments

Polling data show that Blacks know, yet overestimate, the negative stereotypes that

Whites hold about their group (Sigelman & Tuch, 1997). Study 2 confirmed that our

Black participants were aware of their lower perceived status relative to Whites. If

negation of negative stereotypes (Crocker et al., 1998; Richeson, 2003) is a strategy used

by low status persons in social interaction, an important guide for behavior is one’s

perception of the other’s view of oneself (Sigelman & Tuch, 1997; Vorauer et al., 1998;

Vorrauer et al., 2000; Vorauer & Turpie, 2004). Vorauer and her colleagues (2000) have

documented that high status White persons held beliefs about how they were perceived

by lower status Aboriginies that affected their responses to a member of that out-group.

Even more troubling are data suggesting that such concerns among high status members

36

can have a disruptive effect on behavior that would facilitate intergroup harmony

(Dovidio et al., 2002; Miller & Malloy, 2003; Vorauer & Turpie, 2004).

Although there have been important insights into the metaperceptions of high status

group members (Vorauer et al., 1998; Vorauer et al., 2000; Vorauer & Turpie, 2004), it is

likely that the process of metaperception operates differently among members of a group

with low status (Judd, Park, Ryan, Brauser, & Kraus, 1995). For example, Blacks

overestimate negative evaluations of their ability by Whites (Sigelman & Tuch, 1997)

and gay men predict that heterosexual men will judge them more negatively than they do

(Miller & Malloy, 2003). In this study the trait metaperceptions of Black men were all

greater than those of White men, and for two factors (Conscientiousness and Emotional

Adjustment) were reliably greater. This is consistent with findings that Blacks’ self

ratings are often higher than those of Whites and may serve a self-protective function

(Crocker & Major, 1989). When considering variance components in metaperceptions,

the results for Blacks mirror closely the patterns observed for their trait perceptions. That

is, the perceiver variances in Blacks’ metaperceptions averaged .33 across the 25 trait

dimensions, and was much less than the estimate of .51 among Whites. Across seven

studies, Kenny (1994) reported an estimate of perceiver variance in trait metaperceptions

of .55; a meta-analytic estimate that is consistent with our estimate for Whites. Clearly,

Blacks’ predictions of how they are perceived by White partners are much less consistent

than the same predictions made by Whites. Rather, Blacks predicted that they were

perceived uniquely by their White partners; all but one relationship variance component

was reliably different from zero and the average relationship variance of .22 was more

than twice the magnitude of Kenny’s (1994) meta-analytic estimate of .10. The average

37

relationship variance in metaperceptions among Whites was .10 and replicates Kenny’s

estimate. Overall, the sources of variation in Blacks’ metaperceptions are different from

that observed among Whites, and in the general literature.

In terms of accuracy, neither Blacks nor Whites accurately predicted how their two

partners generally judged their traits; the accuracy of metaperceptions of Blacks and

Whites was constrained mathematically to be zero because when target variance is zero

the meta-accuracy correlation must be zero (Albright & Malloy, 1999). These results are

consistent with the conclusion by Dovidio et al. (2002) that members of interracial dyads

“have different perspectives and different access to thoughts and observable behavior” (p.

99). Following two 20 minute interactions, Black and White men could not predict

accurately the judgments of them by their partners. Within specific dyads, neither Blacks

nor Whites accurately predicted how a specific partner judged their traits with average

dyadic meta-accuracy correlations across the traits of r’s of .08 and .06, respectively.

Participants did not know how their two partners or how a specific partner judged them.

These results have basic theoretical implications. In an interracial interaction

dyad members know their relative status, prevailing stereotypes, and anxiety is

experienced by both (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). The low status member will strive to

negate negative stereotypes and create a positive social climate while the high status

member is anxious about appearing bigoted and actively monitors responses in order to

avoid conveying bias (Crocker et al., 1998; Richeson, 2003). Concomitantly, verbal and

non-verbal behavior that conveys positive regard for the other may be likewise inhibited

(Vorauer & Turpie, 2004). It appears that each member of the dyad is occupied with

managing their responses to accomplish different interaction goals; the unfortunate

38

consequence is that neither Black nor White men knew accurately how others generally

or how specific others judge them. In the absence of accurate knowledge, one must

necessarily make inferences. If the low status person realizes from verbal or non-verbal

behavior that the partner’s view of them is not sufficiently nuanced or responsive,

mistrust is a likely outcome (Dovidio et al., 2002). If the Black person infers that the

White person views them stereotypically (Sigelman & Tuch, 1997), and data from Study

2 suggest this is a likely occurrence, interracial interactions may be avoided in the future

(Steele & Aronson, 1995). When such a process occurs within the academic or work

contexts and leads one to conclude that the other is using negative stereotypes, one is

likely to withdraw from the context (Kanungo, 1979; Osborne, 2004; Steele, 1992).

Disengagement and withdrawal from social institutions such as education, a well

documented concern among American Blacks, has long term deleterious consequences.

Affect in Interracial Interactions

Affect and quality of interactions. Intergroup affect is recognized as an important

determinant of intergroup behavior (Mackie & Smith, 1998; Malloy, 2007; Stephan &

Stephan, 1985), and these data showed that Blacks’ and Whites’ affect for their partners

and assessment of their interracial interactions were strikingly different. Whites

evaluated the quality of their interactions with different Black partners similarly, and also

reported similar affective responses to them. Blacks, on the other hand, differentiated the

quality of their interactions with Whites and also showed unique liking for different

partners. Not only did Blacks uniquely judge the traits of Whites, they had unique

affective responses to specific partners, and evaluated uniquely the quality of interactions

with them.

39

Metaperception of Affect. Whites predicted they were liked similarly by Blacks

and this mimicked the results for quality of interaction and interpersonal affect. In

contrast, Black men predicted unique affective responses to them by different White

partners (relationship variance on the metaperception of positive affect construct of .43).

This stands in marked contrast to Whites’ relationship variance in the metaperception for

positive affect construct that was .10. As with trait judgments, Blacks showed much

more differentiated, unique affective responses to their White partners, whereas the

Whites responded similarly to their Black partners affectively and when assessing

interaction quality. These results are consistent with findings by Littleford and

colleagues (2005) who observed that the affective responses of Whites did not change

when interacting with members of different ethnic minorities (Blacks and Asians). These

authors also found that Whites showed elevated physiological arousal and reported

greater discomfort when interacting with Blacks compared with Asians or Whites. This

anxiety and discomfort is likely to be actively suppressed so that prejudice is not

communicated to the other (Shelton, 2003; Vorauer & Turpie, 2004), however

impairment of cognitive functioning may result. A longer term consequence is the

diminished likelihood of interacting with Blacks in the future (Shelton & Richeson, 2005;

Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Because contact with an out-group (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew

& Tropp, 2000) can facilitate positive intergroup relations, the negative emotion and

anxiety Whites experience when interacting with Blacks (Littleford et al., 2005; Vorauer

& Kumhyr, 2001; Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002; Dovidio et al., 2002) can

undermine this process. Likewise Blacks’ anticipation of being negatively stereotyped by

Whites (Judd et al., 1995; Sigelman & Tuch, 1997; Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002; Pinel,

40

1999; Steele, 1997; Stephan & Stephan, 2000) may motivate them to preemptively

undercut this possibility by being highly attentive (Frable et al., 1990; Fiske, 1993) and

uniquely responsive. Yet if the out-group member does not respond in kind, and the

White men in Study 1 clearly did not, then interracial contact may exacerbate racial

conflict. For example, the correlation of Blacks’ affect for White partners and Whites’

affect for them correlated at r = .11; the equivalent estimate for perceived interaction

quality was r = .16. These estimates document an absence of generalized reciprocity of

positive affect in interracial dyads. Even more concerning were estimates of dyadic

reciprocity in which Blacks’ and Whites’ responses in specific dyads were correlated

negatively for interaction quality (r = -.34) and positive affect (r = -.17). Interracial

contact without positive reciprocity, coupled with divergent views regarding the quality

of an interaction, may hinder the development of more positive race relations.

Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions

Since the seminal study of Black and White dyadic interaction by Ickes (1984),

social psychology has been slow to pursue research on behavior in interracial dyads.

This research (e.g., Littleford et al., 2005; Richeson, 2003) has revealed that interracial

interactions are very complex situations for those involved. The present research adds

new data relevant to these dynamics by studying interracial responses in both face to face

and asocial contexts. That similar results emerged in both contexts enhances the

experimental validity of the findings, and future research that uses different paradigms to

study interracial phenomena seems warranted. Particularly important are studies of

reciprocal responses in face to face interactions.

41

There is an important limitation of this study. Because the data were collected in

a region where the White population exceeds the Black population by a 14 to 1 ratio, we

cannot generalize to other contexts. If this research was conducted in a region where

populations were equivalent in size a different pattern of results may have emerged. We

cannot rule out this possibility; although we believe that equivalent population size does

not eradicate the social psychology of prejudice and discrimination. For example, in the

case of South African Apartheid, Blacks were a large majority of the population and

Whites interacted regularly with Blacks. In spite of their numerical status, Blacks were

still victims of institutional racism and discrimination; we posit that perceptions were

undifferentiated as well.

An important methodological implication of this research is that the analysis of

mean differences did not provide a glimpse into the different determinants of interracial

responses of Blacks and Whites. Only by partitioning responses into perceiver, target,

and relationship components in Study 1 were we able to clearly view the complexity of

interracial phenomena (see Kenny et al., 2006). Study 2 used a variance component

analysis that provided more information and greater statistical precision than other

analytic approaches used in the type generation paradigm. Future studies that use

multiple interaction designs and new developments in variance component analysis of

intergroup responses (Malloy, 2007) can reveal the complex dynamics of interracial

encounters so that strategies can be developed to improve them.

42

References

Albright, L., & Malloy, T.E. (1999). Effect of self-observation on

metaperception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 726-734.

Albright, L., & Malloy, T. E. (2000). Experimental validity: Brunswik,

Campbell, Cronbach, and enduring issues. Review of General Psychology, 4, 337-353.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-

Wesley.

Blascovicj, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N.

(2001). Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 253-267.

Brewer, M. B. & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert & S.

T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, (Vol. 2, 4th

ed.), pp. 554-594.

Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-

protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert & S.

T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th

ed., pp. 504-553).

Boston, McGraw Hill.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary

prejudice: The causes, consequences, and challenges of aversive racism. In J. L.

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit

prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,

62-68.

43

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. (2002). Why can’t

we just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and

Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 88-102.

Duncan, S., Jr., & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research,

methods, and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dutton, D., & Lake, R. (1973). Threat of own prejudice and reverse

discrimination in interracial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28,

94-100.

Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1998). Confronting racism: The problem and the

response. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publictions.

Eberhardt, J. L., Godd, P. A., Purdie, V. J., & Davies, P. G. (2004). Seeing

Black: Race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 87, 876-893.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on

stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.

Frable, D. E. S., Blackstone, T., & Scherbaum, C. (1990). Marginal and mindful:

Deviants in social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 140-

149.

Gage, N. L., & Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Conceptual and methodological problems

in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 62, 411-422.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

44

Hacker, A. (1992). Two nations: Black and White, separate, hostile, unequal.

New York: Scribner’s.

Herek, G. M. (1989). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men: Issues for

research and policy. American Psychologist, 44, 948-955.

Ickes, W. (1984). Compositions in black and white: Determinants of

interactions in interracial dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 330-

341.

Ickes, W., Patterson, M. L., Rajecki, D. W., & Tanford, S. (1982). Behavioral

and cognitive consequences of reciprocal versus compensatory responses to pre-

interaction expectancies. Social Cognition, 1, 160-190.

John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality

in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of

Personality: Theory and Research (pp. 66-100). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott, R. A.

(1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: Freeman.

Judd, C. M., Park, B., Ryan, C. S., Brauer, M., & Kraus, S. (1995). Stereotypes

and ethnocentrism: Diverging interethnic perspectives of African American and White

American youth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 460-481.

Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited.

Psychological Bulletin, 86, 119-138.

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis.

New York: Guilford Press.

45

Kenny, D. A., West, T., Malloy, T. E., & Albright, L. (2006). Componential

analysis of interpersonal perception data. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10,

282-294.

Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Yoon, C. (1996). Perceived covariation among

the features of in-group and out-group members: The out-group covariation effect.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 421-436.

Linville, P. W. & Fischer, G. W. (1998). Group variability and covariation:

Effects on intergroup judgment and behavior (pp. 123-150). In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler,

& C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Linville, P. W., & Fischer, G. W. (2004). From basketball to business: Expertise,

implicit covariation, and social judgment (pp. 179-202). In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O,

Corneille (Eds), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity,

and essentialism. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Littleford, L. N., Wright, M. O., Sayoc-Parial, M. (2005). White students’

intergroup anxiety during same-race and interracial interactions: A multimethod

approach. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 85-94.

Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (1998). Intergroup relations: Insights from a

theoretically integrative approach. Psychological Review, 105, 499-529.

Malloy, T. E. (2007). Intergroup relations and reconciliation: A theoretical and

methodological analysis. In A. Nadler, T. E. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social

Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation. New York: Oxford University Press, in press.

46

Malloy, T. E., Barcelos, S., Arruda, E., DeRosa, M., & Fonseca, C. (2005).

Individual differences and cross-situational consistency of dyadic social behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 643-654.

Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Lickel, B., & Hunter, S. (2002). Challenge and

threat during social interaction with white and black men. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 28, 939-952.

Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis, A., & Pietrzak, J.

(2002). Sensitivity to status based rejection: Implications for African American

students’ college experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 896-

918.

Miller, L. C., Rothblum, E. D., Felicio, D., & Brand P. (1995). Compensating for

stigma: Obese and non-obese women’s reactions to being visible. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1093-1106.

Miller, S., & Malloy, T. E. (2003). Interpersonal behavior, perception, and affect

in status-discrepant dyads: Social interaction of gay and heterosexual men. Psychology

of Men and Masculinity, 4, 121-135.

Monteith, M. J. (1993). Self-regulation of prejudiced responses: Implications for

progress in prejudice-reduction efforts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

65, 469-485.

Mullen, B., & Hu, L. (1989). Perceptions of in-group and out-group variability:

A meta-analysis integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 233-252.

Osborne, J. W. (2004). Identification with academics and violence in schools.

Review of General Psychology, 8, 147-162.

47

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce

prejudice: Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and

discrimination. The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology (pp. 93-114).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Phelps, E. A., O’Connor, K. J., Cunningham, W. A., Funayama, E. S., Gatenby, J.

C., & Banaji, M. R. (2000), Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts

amygdala activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 729-738.

Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social

stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114-128.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. W., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social

dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.

Richeson, J. A., Baird, A. A., Gordon, H. L., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C. L.,

Trawalter, S., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial

contact on executive function. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1323-1328.

Richeson, J. A., & Trawalter, S. (2005). Who do interracial interactions impair

executive function? A resource depletion account. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 88, 934-947.

Shelton, J. N. (2003). Interpersonal concerns in social encounters between

majority and minority group members. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 62,

171-185.

Shelton, J. N. & Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic

ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 91-107.

48

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Sigelman, L., Bledsoe, T., Welch, S., & Combs, M. W. (1996). Making contact?

Black-White social interaction in an urban setting. The American Journal of Sociology,

101, 1306-1332.

Sigelman, L., & Tuch, S. A. (1997). Meta-stereotypes: Blacks’ perceptions of

Whites’ stereotypes of Blacks. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 87-101.

Snodgrass, S. E. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal

sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 154-158.

Snodgrass, S. E., Hecht, M. A., & Ploutz-Snyder, R. (1998). Interpersonal

sensitivity: Expressivity or perceptivity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

74, 238-249.

Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzey

& E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 883-948). New

York: Random House.

Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity

and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

Steele, C., & Aaronson, J. (1995). Stereotype vulnerability and the intellectual

test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

69, 797-811.

Stephan, W. G. (1985). Intergroup relations. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),

The handbook of social psychology (3rd

ed., Vol. 2, pp. 599-658). New York: Random

House.

49

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social

Issues, 41, 157-175.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of

prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23-45).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stephan, W. G.,Boniecki, K. A., Ybarra, A., Ervin, K. S., Jackson, L. A., &

McNatt, P. S. et al. (2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of blacks and whites.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242-1254.

Vorauer, J. D., Main, K. J., & O’Connell, G. B. (1998). How do individuals

expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of

meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 917-939.

Vorauer, J. D., Hunter, A. J., Main, K. J., & Roy, S. A. (2000). Meta-stereotype

activation: Evidence from indirect measures for specific evaluative concerns experienced

by members of dominant groups in intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 78, 690-707.

Vorauer, J. D., & Kumhyr, S. M. (2001). Is this about you or me? Self- versus

other-directed judgments and feelings in response to intergroup interaction. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 706-719.

Vorauer, J. D., & Turpie, C. A. (2004). Disruptive effects of vigilance on

dominant group members’ treatment of outgroup members: Choking versus shining

under pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 384-399.

Weitz, S. (1972). Attitude, voice, and behavior: A repressed affect model of

interracial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 14-21.

50

Table 1

Asymmetric Block Design

White Men Black Men

1 2 3 4

1 x x

White Men

2 x x

3 x x

Black Men

4 x x

Note. An x indicates a measurement of a dyadic response.

51

Table 2

Trait Judgments: Component Variances and Means

Perceiver Target Relationship Means

B W B W B W B W

Factor1 .00 .29* .00 .00 .59* .30* 8.03 8.18

Factor2 .12 .36* .00 .00 .33* .21 8.50 8.68

Factor3 .00 .28* .00 .00 .57* .42* 8.05 8.27

Factor4 .13 .31* .00 .00 .37* .35* 8.20 8.39

Factor5 .00 .45* .00 .04 .44* .09* 7.94 8.07

Note. B is Black and W is White. Entries are standardized construct variance

components based on five indicators of each construct. * p < .05 that the construct

variance is reliably different from zero. Factors 1 through 5 are; extroversion,

agreeableness, good natured, emotional adjustment, and intelligence.

52

Table 3

Trait Metaperceptions: Component Variances and Means

Perceiver Target Relationship Means

B W B W B W B W

Factor1 .36* .59* .00 .00 .18* .06 8.23 8.04

Factor2 .44* .47* .00 .02 .19* .13* 8.47 8.17

Factor3 .15 .57* .00 .02 .47* .17* 8.09a 7.53b

Factor4 .35* .51* .03 .05 .12 .08 8.36 7.89

Factor5 .33* .41* .02 .03 .16* .04 7.88 7.74

Note. B is Black and W is White. Entries are standardized construct variance

components based on five indicators of metaperceptions for each construct. * p < .05 that

the construct variance is reliably different from zero. Means with different subscripts are

reliably different. Factors 1 through 5 are; extroversion, agreeableness, good natured,

emotional adjustment, and intelligence.

53

Table 4

Dyadic Behavior: Means and Component Variances

Behavior Actor Partner Relationship/Error Mean

__________ _______ ______________ __________

B W B W B W B W

Speaking

Time .32 .00 .00 .00 .68 1.00 9.51 8.92

Questions 00 .03 .00 .00 1.00 .97 12.36 10.54

SBC .51* .37 .09 .01 .40 .62 25.22a 37.50b

LBC .61* 00 .33 00 .06 1.00 2.19 2.87

Smiles .20 .55 00 .04 .80 .41 8.44 8.19

Laughs .34* .69 00 .02 .66 .30 10.01 11.15

Note. Speaking time is in minutes. * p < .05. Means with different subscripts are reliably

different. Relationship is confounded with error and is not tested for statistical

significance.

54

Table 5

Individual Differences and Actor Effects in Behavior

Back Channel

Individual Difference Speaking Time Construct

B W B W

Stigma Consciousness .77* -- -.45* --

Social Dominance -.55* -- -.83* --

Note. – insufficient actor variance to estimate the correlations. * p < .05.

55

Table 6

Component Variances and Means: Quality of Interaction, Perceived and

Metaperceived Positive Affect

Perceiver Target Relationship Mean

__________ _______ ___________ __________

B W B W B W B W

Quality Factor .20 .35 .13 0 .53 .19 8.26 8.26

- Enjoy .26 .49* .18 00 .74 .33

- Interesting .32 .50* .17 00 .68 .34

- Comfortable .00 .23 .08 00 1.00 .70

Positive Affect

Factor .19 .26 .11 00 .46 .22 7.62 7.73

- liking .18 .37* .08 .00 .82 .55

- be friends .30 .60* .18* .00 .70 .22

- similarity .23 .26 .02 .00 .66 .72

MP Positive

Affect Factor .20 .39 .23 .00 .43 .10 7.06 6.68

- MP liking .39 .42* .30* .00 .61 .28

- MP Similarity .00 .43* .18 .00 1.00 .39

Note. MP is metaperception. Relationship and error variance are partitioned for the

quality of interaction, affect, and MP of positive affect factors, but are pooled for

the indicators of the factors.

56

Table 7

Individual Differences and Target Effects in Perceived

Quality of the Interaction and Interpersonal Affect

Quality Positive Affect

------------ -----------------

Individual Difference B W B W

Dimension

Stigma Consciousness .69* - .72* -

Social Dominance -.29* - -.41* -

Note. B and W are Black and White perceivers, respectively. Correlations of the

scores on the individual difference dimensions and partners’ consensual judgment of

interaction quality and affect for the individual. * p < .05 with df = 50 (N persons – G

groups – 1). A – indicates insufficient partner variance to estimate the correlation.

57

Table 8

Psychological Interpretation of Idiographic Variance Components

Variance Component Psychological Interpretation

Category Type t2

the differentiation of the types on a set of traits

Personality Trait p2

the differentiation among traits when rating the set of types

Type x Trait tp2 the differentiation of specific types on specific traits

Note. Theoretical interpretation of variance components with no error of measurement

from the Type Generation Paradigm.

58

Table 9

Type and Trait Variance Components by Race of Judge and Target Category

Race of Judge

---------------------------------------------

Blacks Whites

Target Category Target Category

---------------------------- -----------------------------

Black White Black White

Type Variance 19.37 17.39 9.31 19.08

Trait Variance 2.79 2.86 2.28 1.79

Entires are variance components in a 10 point metric and are not the weighted variances.