alvarez, m. & brehm, j. are americans ambivalent towards racial policies

8/18/2019 ALVAREZ, M. & BREHM, J. Are Americans Ambivalent Towards Racial Policies

1/31

Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal

of Political Science.

http://www.jstor.org

Are Americans Ambivalent Towards Racial Policies?Author(s): R. Michael Alvarez and John BrehmSource: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 345-374Published by: Midwest Political Science Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111768Accessed: 17-08-2014 02:45 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.155 on Sun, 17 Aug 2014 02:45:15 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2111768http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2111768http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsahttp://www.jstor.org/


2/31

AreAmericans

mbivalentowards

Racial

Policies?*

R. Michael Alvarez, California nstitute f Technology

John

Brehm,

Duke

University

Theory:

he

variability

n

ndividualespondent'sonsiderationsver

acial olicy

may

e

due

to

uncertaintyr

to ambivalence. mbivalences distinctrom

ncer-

tainty

n

that t stems

rom

ncommensurable

hoices,

ndcannot

e

altered ith

additionalnformation.

Methods:

sing heteroskedastic

robit echnique,

e

consider

ix

separate

ore

beliefs otentiallyelevantowardsacial olicy hoice modem acism,ntiblack

stereotyping,uthoritarianism,

ndividualism,

nd

nti-Semitism)

or our

ifferent

policy

hoices.We evaluate wo

eparate odels

or he

ource

f

ndividualari-

ance:conflictingalues nddirect ffectsf values.

Results: ur nalysisndicateshatmodem acism

rumps

ival

xplanatory

ari-

ables

n

explanations

f

racial

olicy hoice,

nd hat

ariability

n

attitudes

oward

racial olicys due to

uncertainty,

ndnot o ambivalence.

Few contemporary

olicydebates re

as

conflictuals the

debatesover

policies ntended o redress acial nequality. litesconflict ver he pecific

terms fpolicy,over the

appropriateness

f

particular oals,

and over the

symbols

nd

rhetoric hatdefine he issues.

For

some

individuals,

acial

policy

wears all the

signs

of a

policy

debate that

yields

nternal

onflict,

or

ambivalence

ver

policy

choices. Our

specific

esearch

uestion

enters

on the sources of individual

mbivalence,

manifested s

greater

mplicit

variation

n

the rangeof considerations

n

response

o

survey uestions.

If

one thinks f a

survey esponse s a sample from n

individual's

range fconsiderationsverpolicy hoice Zaller 1992), then here re two

more

mportant

ttributesf the

range

of

considerations:ts central en-

dency which

we

might ssumeto be the

xpected urvey

esponse)

s well

as its

variance

the

diversity

f

potential

nswers

respondent

might up-

ply). Typicallyresearchers ave been concernedwith

modeling

nly

the

*Anearlier ersion fthis aperwaspresentedtthe 3rdAnnualMeeting f heMidwest

Political cienceAssociation,pril -8,

1995, hicago,L. We appreciatehe ommentsf

Morgan ousser, ynn anders, aulSniderman,aura toker,nd heDuke-UNC olitical

Psychology roup.We thank aul

Sniderman,hilip . Tetlock, ndThomas iazza for

use

of

their 991Race

and

Politics urvey. lvarez hanksheJohnM. OlinFoundation

for

upport

f his research.

Editor's ote: he paper eceived heJohnprague ward romheMidwest olitical ci-

enceAssociation

n

1996.

American ournal fPolitical cience,Vol. 41, No. 2, April

997,Pp. 345-374

?

1997bytheBoard fRegentsf theUniversityfWisconsin

ystem


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/31

346

R.

Michael

Alvarez nd John

rehm

firstomponent

f the

urvey esponse-choices

bout

policies.Under-

standing

he actors

hich

etermine

ndividualesponses

opolicy hoice

questionss mportant.ut t lsomighte mportantoexaminehe econd

component

f the

survey esponse-the

variation

n individual

olicy

choices,

r the

range

f

considerations

hey ringo bear

n their

urvey

response.

arger ariation

n

responses

rom

n individual ight e

due

to

unreflective

esponse

anufactured

tthe

oor,

r t

might

e

symptom-

atic

of

nternalized

onflictver he

pecificolicy

omain.

The

firstorm fresponse ariability

s uncertainty,istinguished

rom

other ormsfresponse

ariability

n

that

dditionalnformationelps

he

respondento harpenisorher pinions.ncertaintybout ublic olicies

is a

functionf a

lack of

nformation,

ither temming

rom he

respon-

dent's wnpersonal

nformation

osts rfrom eficiencies

n

the ransmis-

sion of

informationrom lites o citizensAlvarez

1997;

Alvarez nd

Franklin

994;

Bartels 986). Uncertaintyan

always

be

resolved,

ow-

ever, y

additional

nformation.

The second

orm f

response

ariability

s

ambivalence,

herein

ddi-

tional

nformationnlyheightens

he

nternalized

onflict

Liberman

nd

Chaiken991;Tetlock 986),makinghe olicyhoicesmore ifficultnd

responses

more ariable. mbivalence

rises

n a choice ituation hen

the

hoice

recludes

ompromise,

uch hat

pting

or ne

alternativere-

cludes

he ther.

iterally,

ambivalence means

the imultaneousxis-

tence fconflicting

motions

Webster's

New

UniversalUnabridged

ic-

tionary,

nd

ed.,

S.V. ambivalence ),

.e.,

that policychoice

is

simultaneouslyood

ndbad.The roleof

additionalnformationoes

not

reduce

henumberf factors elevant

n an ambivalenthoice ituation;

instead,dditionalnformationakes he imultaneousactorsmore a-

lient.f twoof

a respondent'sorebeliefs onflictver policy hoice,

no amount f

additionalnformationan narrowhe esponse

ariance.

The different

rigins

f

response

nstability

re

consequential-the

doorsteppinion

uggests

hat

espondents

re

ll-equipped

o

participate

in

the

ebate,

hile

he

nternally

onflictualpinion

means

hat he

ebate

itself

s difficult.ariation

ueto ll-formedr

uncertain

esponses

ndicts

the

respondent

r the

political

rocess,

whilevariation

ue

to

difficult

choices

ndambivalencedentifies

he

very

marrow

f

politics.

Aswehave rguedlsewhereAlvarezndBrehm 995), source f

conflict

ver

olicy

hoices anbe conflictetween

orevalues. f

multiple

core

values

ertain

o

a

policy

hoice, et heymplicate

ifferentnswers

in

the

debate,

hen

espondents

ho

heedthose alues

will

be conflicted

in their nswers.

ifficult

olicy

hoices

ypically

nvolve uch onflicts.

Abortion

olicy

s

difficultor

he espondent

ho

prizes

woman's

epro-

ductive

hoice,

ut lso believes hat

umanife

begins

well

before

irth.




4/31

ARE AMERICANSAMBIVALENTTOWARDS

RACIAL POLICIES? 347

Environmental

olicy hoices re tough or he

respondent ho values

clean

ir

ndwater, et egretsmposingny osts

n ndustryhatmight

leadtowardshe oss of obs. The decision o go to war gainst foreign

tyrants conflictual

or hosewho ue ommittingmericanroopsobattle.

Do conflicting

orevalues ndercutacial

olicy? ccordingo everal

prominentcholarlyreatments,he nswers yes.

Rokeach 1973) denti-

fies significantraction

frespondentsorn etweenwo

erminalalues,

freedomnd

quality,ver iverse olicy hoices,ncludingace.Katz nd

Hass 1988)

attributehites' onflictver acialpolicy o two ompeting

value rientations,Protestantthic nd

humanitarian-egalitarianrienta-

tion.

Do these

ompeting

orevalues

mplicate

nternalized

onflict?gain,

the

nswer

n the

cholarshipppears

o be

yes.McConahay1986) argues

that

he ifference

etweenhe

espondent's

eactivity

o

old-fashioned

racism cales racial uperiority)ndthose

measuringmodem racism

denotes zoneof mbivalencebout ace.Katz

nd

Hass

1988)

and

Katz,

Wackenhut,

ndHass

1986) argue

hatwhite

ubjects

xperiencesycho-

logical ensionnddiscomfortn

response

o he

resencef ues ctivating

conflictedacial ttitudes.aertnerndDovidio 1986)demonstratere-

sidual ore

f versive

acism,

ven

mong ubjects

rofessingeneralized

support

or acial

policy.

To even hemost

ursory

tudentf he

cholarship

n racial

ttitudes,

it s bluntlybvioushat

esearchersollide ver he asicforces hat rive

racial ttitudes.ne

groupKinder 986;

Kinder ndSears

1981;

McCona-

hay 1986)contendshat

symbolic acism, combination

f

antiblack

affect ith raditionalmerican

alues,

riveswhite esistanceo racial

policy. y

this

rgument,

hiteswho

oppose

uch

policies

s

affirmativeaction rbusing n thegroundshat lacks regetting ore han hey

deserve,

remotivated

y

a form fracism hat as

replaced

vert

xpres-

sions

f

racial

uperiority.

niderman

ndhis

colleaguesSniderman

nd

Hagen 1985;

Snidermannd Piazza

1993;

Snidermannd

Tetlock 986)

argue

hat

ymbolic

acism

ails

because

t

confoundshe

policy

hoice

with he

ttitude,

hile

t

the

ame ime

gnoring

he

ontinuingresence

of

simple

ntiblackffects a source fwhite

pposition

o racial

olicy.

We take he evel

f

onflictbout he ources

nd

meaning

fwhite

pposi-

tion o racialprogramss onepieceofevidencehatndividualttitudes

may

be in

conflict.

Both

roups

f

partisans

n the

ebate avedirect vidence bout

ndi-

vidual mbivalenceoward ace.When

nealters he

uestion

n

relatively

minor

ays,

necanelicit

ntirely

ifferent

esponses,ndeed,

vendiffer-

ent

patterns

f

responses. mong

ther

ersistent

ifferences,

inder nd

Sanders

1990)

demonstrate

hroughsplit-formurveyesign

hat

raming




5/31

348

R.

Michael

Alvarez nd John

rehm

thedebate s

a

question

f

reverse

iscriminationaused

egalitarian

respondentso see affirmative

ction s

undesirable,

hereas frame f

unfair dvantages ausedegalitarianso supportffirmativection.

SnidermanndPiazza

1993,

178)

conclude

n

their

ook:

Of

the

myriad

indings

e

have

reported

n

contemporary

mericana-

cial

attitudes,

he netowhichwe

ourselves

ttach

he

most

mportance

s the

pliability

f

the

policy

ositions

f

substantial

umbersf

whites n

specific

issues frace. t

has

ong een ssumed hat

hitesre

dug

non

racial

ssues.

In

fact,argenumbersfwhites anbe dislodgedromhepositionsheyhave aken nmanyssues f

racebycallingheir

ttentiono

countervailing

considerations.

The deepest

rony

f

the

dispute

s

that oth

roupsf

partisanscknowl-

edge

hat he

raming

f he

ebate

eterminesow

espondents

ill

nswer

questions

bout acial

olicy,

nd hat

oth

roups

f

partisanselieve

hat

the

ability

f

response

choes

he

broader

olicy

ebate

mong

lites.

The differencesetween ncertaintynd ambivalenceverpolicy

choice

oint

otwo riteriao

distinguish

he

oncepts.

ncertaintyeduces

with dditional

nformation,

hile

mbivalenceoes

not;

hence,

f one

s

ableto

demonstratehat etter

nformed

espondents

ave ess

variancen

their

esponses,

t

ndicates

ncertainty.

mbivalencetems rom

choice

between

ncommensurables,

nd

thedominant

iterature

oints o the

ole

of

competingalues;

ence,

f

one s

ableto

demonstratehat s

competing

values

ecome

ncreasinglymportant

o

an ndividual

hat

ndividual's

e-

sponse etbecomesmorevariable,hen tindicatesmbivalence.hesecriteriastablish

ell-definedonditionso

adjudicate etween

mbiva-

lence nd

uncertainty.

Our

point

s not

to

settle,

r

hardly

o

enter,

he

rgument

ver

he

existence

f

symbolic

acism

s a distinct

ource f

racial

ttitudes.ur

specific

nterests to

assesshow evels

f

support

or

hese alues

ccount

for oth he

olicy

hoices ndthe

variability

f

those hoices.

ur

paper

has

three arts.We

first

evelop

ix

scales

for

ertinent

aluesfromhe

1991 Race

and Politics

urvey:ymbolic

acism,

ntiblack

tereotyping,

authoritarianism,nti-Semitism,galitarianism,nd individualism. e

then-turn

owards

n

evaluation

f the ffect

f these

alues

upon

policy

choices n

this

urvey.

sing heteroskedastic

robit

model,

we look at

both

he

probability

f

support

or

he

policy ndthe

mplicit

ariancen

that

robability.

inally,

e

reflect

pon he

elationshipetween

nternal-

ized

conflictt

the evel

f

ndividual

urvey

esponseo the

ebate

mong

policymakers.




6/31

ARE AMERICANSAMBIVALENTTOWARDS

RACIAL

POLICIES? 349

1. Measurement f Racial

Values

We constructur orebeliefs cales

n the asisofthe1991Race and

Politics urvey, data et ollected ythe urvey esearch enter fthe

University

f

California,erkeley.'

he

unique spect

f theRace and

Politics

urveywas

the

profusion

f

split

uestionnaires,andomlys-

signed o respondents,adepossible ya

Computer idedTelephonen-

terviewpproach.

achof he our

ependent

ariables e consider

ltered

importantomponentsfthe uestion.orpurposesf scaleconstruction,

however, e were tymiedythe plit

amples, ndemployednly hose

questions

hichwere

sked f all

respondents.

We useconfirmatoryactornalysisodevelopix cales, achmeasur-

ingoneof the oncepts hich ssume aryingegrees f prominence

n

scholarlyxplanations

or

variation

n

racial ttitudes.he overall it or

our

confirmatory

actormodel s

adequate

with Goodness

f Fit

ndex

of 0.86.2The firstcale s a measure f

modem acism.

According

o

the

various

uthors

e.g.,

Kinder

986;

Kinder

nd

Sanders

990;

Kinder

bTheata re available hroughhe urvey esearch enter. urrecode SAS), con-

firmatoryactorSAS), andheteroskedasticrobitilesSHAZAM)will e available hrough

the nter-universityonsortiumor olitical

nd Social Research eplicationrchive. he

survey as a telephonenterviewased nrandom-digitialing sing

stratified

wo-phase

sample electionrocedure.hefirsthase f he

rocedureampled

rom

nownrea odes

andprefixes,ppending four-digitandom umber

o generate completeen-digitele-

phone umber.he second hasedrew isproportionately

romample trataontainingt

least ne known esidentialumber,lthoughrawing

lso fromtrata here here as no

known esidential

umber.Known

residential

umbers ere rawn rom

tape

reated

by DonnellyMarketingervices.

ee

Casady

ndLepkowski1991) for urtheretails f

the ampling ethodology.he target opulation

onsistedf all English-speakingdults

over18 years ld,residingnhouseholds ith elephones,ithinhe 8 contiguoustates.

The total

ample

ize was

2,223,

with

response

ate f 65.3% a response ate

n

excess

of

typical

ates or

elephoneurveys).

2We onstructhe cales sing confirmatoryactor odelwith he AS routineROC

CALIS, multiplying

he ndicator

ariables y

thefactoroadings

n

order o obtain he

scales.We free he nter-indicatorovariances

8,

in the tandard

ISREL notation)nly

for airs f ndicators ithin factorfixingnter-indicator

ovarianceso zero

lsewhere).

We free he ovariances

mong

he actors

k).

One

factor

oadingX)

n

eachfactors fixed

at1.0to set he cale.Each scale s coerced o0-1 bounds,

here 1

denotes

hemaximum

observedevel or he cale e.g.,

1

for

uthoritarianism

enotes

respondent

ho

rovidesthemost uthoritariannswersf he

ample).

We reversehreef he calesmodem acism,

authoritarianism,

nd

galitarianism)

o

reflectur

reference

or

nterpretation

f he cales.

The reader hould ote

hat hemaximumndminimumevels or ach caledo

not

eflect

absolutes,ut nly

hemaximumrminimumbserved or he ample. hereliabilitiesas

measured ith Cronbach

lpha)

re 58 formodemacism,63

for ntiblack

tereotyping,

.65

for

nti-Semitism,

82 for

uthoritarianism,

40 for

ndividualism,

nd 52 for

galitarian-

ism.The Cronbach lphaunderestimateseliability

or

on-generic

cales

Bollen 1989,

217). Nonetheless,he eliabilityor he ndividualismtem

n

particulars quite ow.




7/31

350

R.

MichaelAlvareznd John rehm

and

Sears

1981;

McConahay

986)

symbolicrmodem

acism

enotes

conjunction

f

antiblack

ffect ith

raditionalmerican

alues, aking

formnthe ense hat lacks rereceiving orettentionromovernment

or other

dvantages

han

hey eserve.3

We

located hree

uestions hich ap nto

he dea of

modem acism.

One of

these

uestions

s a

simple

hree

oint

ikert cale

asking

espon-

dents

o

rate he

mount

f

attention

hat overnmentas

been

paying

o

minorities.he second

ndthird

ndicatorssk how

angry he

espondent

feels bout

iving

blacks nd

otherminorities

pecial

dvantages

n

obs

and

schools,

ndthe ther

bout

spokesmen or

minoritiesho re

al-

ways omplaininghat lacks rebeing iscriminatedgainst. 4

This

scale

probably

ill

not

atisfy

ither

roup fpartisans

n

the

debate

ver

herelevance f

modern acism.

One of Snidermannd

Tetlock's

hief

bjectionso

themodem acism

oncept

s that he cales

often reat

olicy

hoices s

independent

ariables

n

the

amemodels hat

purport

o

explain olicy hoices s dependent

ariables.

...

[I]t

s

gratuitous

o

equate pposition

o

affirmativectionwith acial

prejudice-gratuitousecausetwould therwiseepossible oexaminehe

actual elationetween

he

wo,

nd hus stablishs a

matterf

fact,

ndnot

of

definition,

ow

and to

what

egree

he wo

re

connected.

uite imply,

defining

pposition

o affirmative

ction s racism

recludes

alsificationf

the

rediction

hat he wo

re ndeed

elated,

t

the ost f

making

he

elation

between

hem

tautologySniderman

ndTetlock

986,

135).

In

order o be

sensitiveothese

bjections, e

replicatell of our

models

excludinghemodem acism

cale,

nd

furthereplication

here e

only

include he ast tem complaining ). ut ndefense fthemeasure, e

note hat he

pecificolicy

eferents

n

themeasures

re rather

blique.

3McConahay1986)

prefershe erm

modern acism,

ith he

xplicitdeathat he

underlyingacial ttitudes

re

possible nlynthe

post ivil

rightsmovement

eriod, nd

because

old-fashioned

acismmightlsobe

symbolici.e.,

not

roundednrealisticroup

conflict).

inder

1986)prefers

he ermsymbolic

acism,ince

he traditional meri-

can values nvoked

ythe

dea arehardly

modern. Neither

abel s perfect.

e optfor

modern acismn he ontextf he pecificuestionsince llreferobliquely)opolicies

only

n

practiceince he

1960s.

4The

how

ngry ariablesre

caled rom

(doesn't other)o

10

extremelyngry),

while hefirst

uestion

s

scaled

oppositelyrom

(too much

ttention)o 5

(notpaying

enough

ttention).

onsidering

he

angef

he

ndicators,

he

ndicatorsoad

roughlyqually

on

the nderlying

cale,

with

stimatedactor

oadings

f -.27

(anger bout

iving

lacks

andother

minorities

pecial

dvantages)

nd-.34

(anger bout

pokesmen

or

minorities

who

are

always

omplaining);

he

ttentiono

minorityroblemsndicatoras

been

on-

strained

o a

coefficientf 1.0.




8/31

ARE AMERICANSAMBIVALENTTOWARDSRACIAL POLICIES? 351

The attention ariable sks therespondent

o evaluate he mount f

attention rom overnmento theproblems

fminorities,ardlyn the

same evel fspecificitys the ependentariables e discuss ater nthis

paper. he atterwoquestionssk about diffuse

anger provoked y

a policy special dvantages)r complaining

pokesmen.

The weaknessn these ndicatorss seen

from he dvocates f the

symbolic

acism

oncept

ould e the bsence f pecificeferentsotradi-

tionalAmericanalues.

f

symbolicacisms the onjunctionf antiblack

affect

nd

traditionalmerican alues, hen hese uestionsredecidedly

weakas far s theirmphasisn unearned dvantages. he anguage

here mphasizestoo much ttention r special dvantages hich r-

bits omewhereear hemeaningf unearneddvantages.

In

place

of themodern acism

cale,

Snidermannd Piazza (1993)

arguefor eparate

onsiderationf alternativealues: authoritarianism,

anti-Semitism,ndividualism,

nd ntiblacktereotyping.

n

a series

f

m-

pressive ivariatenalyses,niderman

ndPiazzademonstrate

hat

uthori-

tarianisms more tronglyorrelated ith pposition

o racial

olicy

han

measures f ndividualism

which hey

ake o be

the

oreof

themodern

racism rgument).

The uthoritarianismcaledraws pon

ix ndicatorshichorrespond

to three

spects

fthe lassic

F

scale ofauthoritarianismAdorno

t al.

1950,228-41)-conventionalism,uthoritarianubmission,nd authori-

tarian

ggression-albeit

o

varying egrees

f coherence.Convention-

alism referredo

rigid

dherenceo

conventional,

iddle-class

alues

and s

captured erewith Following od's

will

and Improving

tan-

dards f

politeness

n

everyday

ehavior.

Authoritarian

ubmission

meant

submissive,

ncriticalttitude

oward

dealizedmoral uthorities

of the n-group nd s measured erewith Preservinghetraditional

ideas

of

right

nd

wrong.

Authoritarian

ggression

eferredo a ten-

dency

o be on the ookout

or, nd

to condemn,eject, ndpunish eople

who

violate

onventional

alues and

s

measuredy Respect

or

uthor-

ity,

Strengthening

aw and

order,

and

Respect

for American

power.

All

six ofthe

oadings

or he ndicatorsre

strong,

here

pre-

5Each f he ndicatorss a responsen a 10 point cale oa questionf he orm How

aboutX? Ona scale from to 10,how mportants that o you? where denotes one

of he east mportanthings nd

10

denotes one of he bsolutely ostmportanthings.

(This cale s not eversed.)heconfirmatoryactornalysis stimatesoadings f 1.00for

Preservinghe raditionaldeasofrightndwrong, 91 for Respect or uthority,74

for Following od's will, 71 for Improvingtandardsfpolitenessneverydayehav-

ior, 76 for Strengtheningaw andorder, nd 78 for Respect orAmericanower.

This cale hus mits t east ixaspects f he scale: nti-intraception,uperstition,ower

and

oughness,

estructivenessnd

ynicism,rojectivity,

nd ex.One

might

onsider

he




9/31

352

R. Michael

Alvarez nd John rehm

servinghe

raditionaldeas

of

rightndwrong

nd respect or uthor-

ity arethe

trongestair.

Our caleforndividualismsmeasuredy hreetems: hemportance

of elf-reliancend

mphasizing

ndividual

chievement,nd Likertcale

assessingngertgovernment

nterference.6his

s

admittedlyweak cale

(with

he

owest

eliability),

nd

anyeffect

hat t

has

in

our

subsequent

analysiss

likely

obe attenuatedueto

the

nferior

evelofmeasurement.

Thenext

cale hatweemploynour

nalysismeasures

nti-Semitism.

SnidermanndPiazza

1993)

find

modest

approximately3) correlations

between

ssessmentsfnegative

ttributes

f

blacks nd

agreement

ith

elementsf nanti-Semiticcale. nseveralnalysesntheirook, nider-

man nd

Piazza utilize nti-Semitism

s a measure f

prejudice

ecause

of

[their] elief hat heheart f

prejudice

s

captured y

the

notion f

ethnocentrism1993,107).We use

five ikertcale

questionsfour oint

scales

which

o not

nclude

he

hedging esponse

f

neither

gree

nor

disagree ).

At face

value,

ne of the

five

uestions

oes not eem o be

anti-Semitic:

Most

Jews re ambitiousndwork ard o

succeed.

We

have woresponses.

he reader hould

ecall

hat he

urpose

fthe

cale

is tomeasure religioustereotypenorderodenote rejudicend thno-

centrism.he

significantart

of

the

apparently

nomalous

uestion

s

Most

Jews

n

ight

f constructionf a

stereotype.

ur econd nswer

is data-driven:henwe

delete

his

uestion

rom he

cale,

he

emaining

loadings lunge

y nearly

5%.]

Fourth,

e

constructscalefor

egalitarianism.

he

nominalonflict

between

galitarianismnd ndividualism

ppears

rominently

nthe

itera-

ture n

attitudesoward

acial

olicy.

atzandHass

1988)

find

n

experi-

mental ork hat rimingubjectso consider nevalueorthe therig-

nificantlyncreasedcores n

correspondingttitudes,utnot n

attitudes

corresponding

o

the

nonprimed

alue. n

other ords,he wo cales

per-

respect orAmerican

ower uestion o

tap nto he power nd

toughness spect f

theF

scale.

6Two f

he uestions

reof similar ormothose

sedfor he uthoritarianism

cale

(infact, art

f he ame atteryf

uestions):Self-reliance

nd emphasizingndividual

achievement. Self-reliance s fixed t

1,

nd

emphasizing

ndividual

chievement

nd

excellencentheob scalesat only 30.Likewise, (How about)Governmentfficials

interfering

nd tryingo tellus whatwe

can and can't

do

with urown ives scales at

only 15.

7The onfirmatory

actoroadings or

heAnti-Semitismcale re 1.00for

MostJews

are

ambitiousndwork ard o

succeed, 85 for MostJews remore

willinghan ther

people o use

shady ractices

o get head

n

ife, 90

for Most

Jews

elieve

hat

hey

are

betterhan ther

eople, 76

for

MostJews n

general

re

nclined

o be more

oyal

to

srael han o

America,

nd 86

for

Most

Jews on't

are

what

appens

o

people

who

aren't

ewish.




10/31

ARE

AMERICANSAMBIVALENT

TOWARDS

RACIAL

POLICIES?

353

ate

ndependently,

ndeachhas the

potential

o

significantly

ffect

refer-

encesfor acial

policy. ipset

nd

Schneider1978,43),

in

a review f a

range f surveyata, ee thedynamicfattitudesowards acial olicy s

between wo alues hat re tthe ore f

theAmericanreed-individu-

alism nd

egalitarianism.

As

with

ur

scale for

ndividualism,

he scale for

galitarianism

s

somewhat eak.

While hefirst ariables fixed t

1

(moremoney

eing

spent

o reduce

nemployment),

he

next

ariable

oads

at

only 33. The

non-Likertcale

questionoadsat

half

hat

-.13). Again,we expect hat

the

ffectsfthe

galitarianism

cale n the

stimationillbe attenuated.

Last we develop measurefantiblacktereotyping.hescale per-

formsdequately.llofthenegative

ttributesaggressive,azy,

oastful,

irresponsible,

omplaining)avepositive,

arge, nd tatisticallyignificant

coefficients.8

We takenote

f

the orrelations

mong

hese ix

generated

cales

see

Appendix for

he ull

orrelationatrix). one

of

he cales re

trongly

correlated.he

highestairs

f

correlations

nclude

ntiblack

tereotyping

and nti-Semitism

.39),

nd

uthoritarianism

nd

ndividualism

.37).

Most

of the emainingairs f ndicatorsre correlatedt 25or ess. The ack

of

trong

ntercorrelationsllows

s

to

be

more onfident

hat ur ndicators

are

ndeed apping

nto

eparate imensions

f possible

alues

underlying

racial eliefs.

These

cales

llow

us to evaluate he

elative eight

fthe

ompeting

explanationsor

pposition

o

racialpolicy,

n

a mode hat

s

similar o

any

other

nalysis

f

policy

hoice.But we

argue

hat

nderstanding

he

choice s

only

neof he

nterestingspects

f he

roblem,

nd

hat nder-

standing

he

variability

n

that

hoice,

or

ach respondent,

lso matters.

We employ heteroskedasticrobitechnique,imultaneouslyodeling

the

probability

hat

respondent ight hoose particularacial

policy

alternativend

he

mountfvariance hichs

associated ith hat

olicy

choice

or he

espondent.

he next ection ummarizesur

pplication

f

this

method.

8Each fthe ndicatorsor he ntiblack

tereotypingcale

s

a responseo

a

question

of

he

orm How about

X? On

a scale

from

to

10,how

welldo

you

hink

hat

t

describes

most lacks? where he caleranges rom ( very naccurate )o 10 very ccurate ).

Since

this

cale

s

ultimatelyeversed,

ach of the

factoroadings

epresents

score n a

pro-blackirection.he

factoroadings

or

he ntiblack

tereotyping

cale we

construct

are:

Aggressive

r violent

1.00),Lazy .87), Boastful.63), rresponsible.77),andCom-

plaining.68).

We

have

eplicatedur nalysis ith second calefor ntiblacktereotyping,

where

hemeasuresnclude oth ositive nd negative

tereotypes.his alternativecale

has

some erious efects

n

that hepositive nd negativettributesppear o oad better

on

separate

cales han n

a

single

cale.




11/31

354

R. MichaelAlvarez

nd John rehm

2. Variability

f Racial Policy Choices

Themechanicsf he eteroskedasticrobitechniquere nAppendix

B. Briefly,

he deabehind

he echniques to specifynd stimateimulta-

neouslywo elatedquations,

nefor he

robabilityf choice, he

ther

for hevariance f the

rroresidual.We refero

the

firstquation

s the

Choice

Model,

and to the econd quation

s the Variance

Model.

Note hat

hevariancemodeled y

this

pproach

s the ndividualespon-

dent's

ariance

n

choice, ot

he ariancecross he

ample. ur pproach

employs

nferentialtatistics

n order

o

model nd

estimate

his ariance

in

choice.

Theheteroskedasticrobitmodel an be applied o virtuallyny ype

of discrete olicy

hoice.For

example,

n our

previous

aper

wefound

substantialupport

or

hehypothesis

hat

many

mericansre mbivalent,

and

not

ncertain,

bout bortion

olicy

hoices,

nd hat his

mbivalence

is determinedythe onflict

etweenwo ore

values,

he alue fhuman

life ndrespect

orwomen's ightsAlvarez

nd

Brehm

995).

Here we

are nterested

n

examining

he ame

hypothesis,

xcept

n

the ontextfracial ttitudes.

s we

discussed arlier,

heres substantial

discussionnthe iteraturebout he ole hatmbivalencelays nracial

politics,

ven or ndividual

hoice.

What

as

been bsents a directxami-

nation

f

the

formf the esponse

ariabilityi.e.,

uncertaintyrambiva-

lence).Ambivalence

s the orm fresponse

ariabilityntails

wo riteria,

thatndividuals ho

re

better

nformedxhibitreateresponse

ariabil-

ity, ecause

hose ndividualsisplay

onflictetween orebeliefs

rval-

ues.

Using

he 991Raceand

Politics

urvey

nd urheteroskedasticrobit

technique,

e can examine olicy

hoice ariability,nd valuate

whether

it s ambivalencer uncertaintyhat haracterizesariable pinionsbout

racial

olicies.

2.1

Choices

AboutRacial

Policy

The

1991Race

and

Politics urvey

atahas

xtensiveata bout iffer-

ent

acial olicy

lternatives.

n

this

aper,

we focus ur ttention

n

only

four ifferent

ypes

fracial

olicy

hoices:

ederalet-aside

rograms

or

minorities,references

or

ualified

lacks

n

university

dmissions,pen

housingaws, nd

whetheroraise

axes o ncreaseducationalpportuni-

tiesforminorities.e useonly hese our ince heynvolvedimple i-

chotomous

yes-no)policy

hoices.9

From he

1991

survey ata,

werecoded our ependent

ariables or

9Many

f the emainingacialpolicy hoices

n these

ata nvolved rderediscrete

choices.We

reserve

he

nalysis

fthose uestionsor

uture ork, ince

he

conometrics

of a heteroskedastic

rdered robitmodel

s

beyond he

copeof this resent

esearch.




12/31

ARE

AMERICANSAMBIVALENT

TOWARDS RACIAL POLICIES? 355

each ype fracial

olicy hoice. hefour inary ariables

re achcoded

so that indicatesn affirmativeesponse

therespondent

avors ederal

set-asidesorminorities,hey elieve hat here ught obe preferencesor

qualified lacks n

universitydmissions,

here ught o be openhousing

laws,and that axesought o be raised

or ducational

pportunitiesor

minorities)

nd0 indicates

negative

esponse. iven his

oding, achof

the our eteroskedasticrobitmodels reestimatinghe

robabilityf an

affirmative

esponse,

nd he oefficients

e estimatehould e nterpreted

with hat

n mind.

Theres one

omplicationebrieflyentioned

n

the

reviousection,

however. ne of the nterestingspects f the1991data nvolved heuse

of

randomizeduestion

xperimentshich oseddifferent

arietiesf ach

question

odifferentespondentsSniderman

ndPiazza1993).That iffer-

ent

uestion

ordings

ere

mployed

n

this urvey,hough,reatly

om-

plicates he nalysis

fthese ata.To dealwith he

heterogeneityhe ues-

tion

wording

xperimentsmpose

n each

dependentariable,

e include

in the hoicefunction

f each heteroskedastic

robitmodeldummy ari-

ables

whichmeasure hich

uestion

ording

ach

respondent

eceived.10

The firstependentariable s a three-versionuestionbout pen

housing:

1. (Neutral,

Dummy

1

=

0, Dummy2

=

0, 57% yes)

Suppose

there

were

community-wide

oteon a

general

ousing

ssue and that

there ere wo

possible

aws to vote n.

One aw

says

hat ome-

owners an decide or hemselves ho o

sell

their

ouses

o,

ven

if

they refer

OT to

sell

toblacks.

he

other

aw says hat ome-

owners annot

efuse

o sell to someone

ecauseof their ace or

color.Which aw wouldyouvotefor?

2.

(Property

ights,Dummy

1

=

1, Dummy

2

=

0,

35% yes)

Some

people

elieve hat omeowners

hould e free o decide or hem-

selveswhoto sell their ouse

o,

even f

they refer

ot o sell t

to blacks.For

example,

ome

peoplemight ay

t isn'tthat

hey

don'twant o sellto

blacks;

t's

ust

hat

hey

on'twant

obe told

what o do with heir wn

property.

n other

words, hey

eel hat

because t's their

roperty,

hey

hould ave

he

ight

o sellto

any-

onetheywant o.

How do

you

feel bout his? o you

think omeowners

hould e

able to decide

for

hemselves

hoto sell their

ouses

o,

even f

0Althoughhere

weremany ariations

n question ormat,e found ew tatistically

significantnteraction

ffects.

hat s,

the ffectf he ifferentuestion ordingsdenoted

here y dummies)

nly hiftedhebaseprobability,nd did

not

nteract

ith

ny

of the

scales o an appreciableegree.




13/31

356

R. MichaelAlvarez

nd

John rehm

they refer

ot o

ell

o

blacks,

rdo you hink

omeowners

hould

not e allowed

orefuseo

sellto

someone

ecause

ftheirace

or

color?

3.

(Role of

government,

ummy

=

0,

Dammy

2

= 1,

38%

yes)

Some people

believe hat

he

government

hould

make n active

efforto

seethat lacks

an

iveanywhere

hey hoose,

ncluding

white eighborhoods.

thers elieve

hat his

s notthe

govern-

ment's usiness

nd t

should tay

ut of this.

How do you

feel?

(Is this

n area

thegovernment

hould tay

ut

of or

should he

government

ake n

active

fforto

see

that lacks an

ive

any-

wherehey an affordo-includingwhite eighborhoods?)

Both heproperty

ightsnd

role

of government

ramesntroduce

rationale

or

pposing

ights

fequal

access

tohousing

or

blacks.

The

property

ights

rame

nvokes ne

ofthe ery

traditional

alues

embed-

ded

n

themodem

acismoncept,

nd o advocates

f

this

oncept

might

expect

he

ign

n

the oefficient

obe

negative,

nd

izable

it

s).

We

do

not

ee

the amerelationship

o the ole

of government

rame,

lthough

t

introducesovernment

ntrusion,

nd

a potential

eactance

ffect.

he

dummyerm or he oleofgovernments alsonegativendsizable.The

coefficient

n

the ole

of

government

ummy

slarger

han he quivalent

for

roperty

ights,lthough

he

wo re statistically

ndistinguishable).

The second uestion

manipulated

four-versionplit

n set-asides,

specifically,

ederal ontracts

or lack

ontractors.

1.

(Dummy

=

0,

Dummy

=

0,38%

yes)

Many eople

elieve

..

2. (Dummy

=

1,Dummy

=

0,

35%

yes)

Many

lacks elieve

..

3.

(Dummy

=

1,Dummy

=

0,

39%

yes)Manypeople re de-

manding

. .

4. (Dummy

=

1,

Dummy

=

1,

38%

yes)

Many

blacks

re de-

manding

..

...

that here

hould e a

law to

make ure hat certain

umber

of

federalontracts

o

toblack ontractors.

hat

o

you

hinkbout

such

law-is it a

good

dea

or a bad idea?

The

people/blacks

ramencourages

acistso

reject

acial olicy

ased

on the equester.he believe/demandingramentroducesreactance

element. e

wouldhave

xpected

hat he igns

n Dummy ,

Dummy ,

and

he nteraction

f he wo

would

ll

be

negative.

nly

he oefficient

or

the

people/blacks

rame

s

negative,

nd t

s not

tatistically

ignificant.

The third

uestion

s a second

our-wayplit

bout

aising

axesfor

education,

lthough

e

opted

o

fold

ogetheresponses

n oneof

he

plits

(not

o use the

dummy).




14/31

ARE

AMERICANSAMBIVALENTTOWARDS RACIAL POLICIES?

357

1.

(Dummy

=

0, Dummy

=

0,

58% yes)Some eoplehave aid

that

axes

need

o be raised o take areofpressing ational

eeds.

Howdoyoufeel-would youbewilling ohaveyour axes aised

a little

n order o mprove

ducationnpublic chools?

2.

(Dummy 1, Dummy

=

0,

62% yes)Both he

residentnd

Congress,ncluding

oth emocrats

ndRepublicans,

ave

ecided

that

axesneed o be raised o take

areofpressing ational

eeds.

How

do youfeel-would youbewilling ohaveyour axes

aised

a little

n

order

o

mproveducation

n

public chools?

3. (Dummy

=

0, Dummy

=

1,

51

%

yes) Some eople

have aid

that axesneed obe raised otake areofpressing ational eeds.

How do

youfeel-would yoube

willing

o have

your

axes aised

a

little

n

order

o

mprove

ducational

pportunitiesfor

inorities?

4.

(Dummy 1, Dummy

=

1, 64%

yes)

Both hePresidentnd

Congress,ncluding

oth emocratsnd

Republicans,

ave

ecided

that axes

need

obe raised o take areof

pressing

ational

eeds.

How

do

youfeel-would you

be

willing

o

have

your

axes

aised

a little

norder o

mproveducational

pportunitiesfor

inorities?

Thefirstariation

Somepeople/Both

he

residentndCongress) anipu-

lates he tatus f

the dvocate. ne might

xpect

hat he

higher

tatus

f

thePresidentnd

Congress ould nduce

igher

evels f

support

or

ol-

icy.Sincewesaw no direct elevance f

the tatus f the dvocate

o the

racial aturef he

uestion,

e

neglectedo

nclude dummy.

he econd

question

ould

ncourageacistsoreject ducational

pportunities

ormi-

norities,ince he nly ignificant

ariation

n

the uestionpecifies

mi-

norities. hecoefficientorDummy wasnegative,ndsizable.The finaluestionhatwe explorenthis aper resentedwo

versions

of

questionselated

o

preferenceor ualified lacks

n

university

dmis-

sion.

1.

(Preference,ummy

=

0,31

%

yes)

Some

people ay hat

ecause

of

past

discrimination,ualified

lacks

hould

e

given reference

in

universitydmissions. thers

ay that

his

s wrong ecause t

discriminates

gainst

whites. ow

do

you

feel-are

you

n

favor

oforopposed ogiving ualifiedlacks referencenadmissiono

colleges

nduniversities?

2. (Extra

ffort,ummy

=

1,

64%

yes)

Some

people ay

that e-

causeof

past iscrimination,

n extra fforthould

e

made

omake

sure hat

ualified

lacks re

considered

or

niversity

dmission.

Others

ay

that his xtra

ffort

s

wrong

ecause t discriminates

against

whites. ow do

you

feel-are

you

n

favor f or

opposed




15/31

358 R. Michael

Alvarez nd John

rehm

to makingn extra

ffort

o make

ure

ualified

lacks

reconsid-

ered or dmissiono colleges

nduniversities?

The preference rame eflects

strongerolicy

han imple extra f-

fort. ence,

we

expected

he

ign

n Dummy to

be positive,nd twas

both ositive

ndstatisticallyignificant.

2.2 Specification

f the Choice Function

Other

han

hedummy ariables

n

the hoice unction,ur pecifica-

tion f this omponent

f themodelwas

driven

argely y theexisting

literature.negroup rgues hatmodem acism tructuresttitudesowards

racialpolicy.

Anotheruggests

hat he ffect fother rejudices

hould

be

included,

ncludingntiblack

ttitudes,eneralizedut-groupntipathy

(in

theform fanti-Semitism),nd authoritarianism.

third roup

on-

tends hat

he onflictf two orevalues-egalitarianism

nd

ndividual-

ism-determineacial ttitudes.

We allow

for

ix

different

cales,

s

discussed

n

the

revious

ection:

modemracism, ndividualism,

ntiblack tereotyping,

uthoritarianism,

anti-Semitism,nd galitarianism.ach s a scaleconstructednthe asis

of

confirmatory

actor

nalysis

fvarious

urvey

tems,

nd achhas

been

recoded o range rom to 1,

where indicates

he

maximumbserved

levelof the cale.

Ourprior eliefs bout

he

igns

n each of

the cales

are that

hey

hould

ll be

negative,

ith

he

xception

f

egalitarianism.

Higherevels

fmodem acism,

ndividualism,ntiblacktereotyping,

u-

thoritarianism,

nd anti-Semitism,

nd lower evels

of

egalitarianism,

should ll be associated

ith esser

upport

or

acial

olicy.

We addition-

ally

nclude he

espondent's

elf-placementn a liberal-conservative

cale

as a controlnthe hoicemodel.We imit he stimatesononblackespon-

dents.

2.3

Specification

f the Variance

Function

The

pecification

f

he ariance

unction

eflects

ur

desire o

test wo

competing

xplanations

or

ifferencescrossAmericans

n

thevariation

of

heiracial

olicy

eliefs.

s

we

argued bove,

ariation

n

policy

eliefs

may

eflect

undamental

ncertainty

bout he

olicy

hoice

nder iscus-

sion. nother ords, eoplemay implyack nformationbout he olicy

choices ndwhat

heymightmply,

ndthat

ncertainty

illbe reflected

in

thevariance

unctionf theheteroskedasticrobit

model Alvarez

nd

Franklin

994;

Franklin

991).

To

control

or he ffectfuncertainty,e nclude

n

the pecification

ofthe

variance

unctionvariable hichmeasures hatwe call chronic

information.his s a simple oliticalnformation

easure,

ased

on

the




16/31

AREAMERICANS

AMBIVALENTTOWARDS RACIAL POLICIES?

359

earliermeasures dvocated

y Zaller 1992). We use an additive cale

whichmeasures hetherhe espondentorrectlynew henumberfSu-

preme ourtmembersnd hemaximumumberfpresidentialerms.his

variable

s

coded o range rom to 1,where indicatesorrectnswers

to

both

actual

oliticalnformationuestions.We expect he stimated

coefficient

obe

negative, hichmplies

hat

with

ncreased

oliticalnfor-

mation he mount f

variance

n

policy

hoices iminishes.

The 1991 urvey ata lso

ncludes hree actualtemswhich re

race-

related:

he

ercentage

f

poor

who re

black,

he

ercent

rrested ho re

black,

nd the

percentagefblackmaleswhoare unemployed. e used

responsesothese hreeuestionsodevelop domain-specificacial nfor-

mationmeasure. lthough

hemechanics

f

the

difference

re

farfrom

clear,

hronicnformation

easures

egularlyutperformomain-specific

information

easures

Zaller

1992).

The rival xplanationor

variability

n

attitudesoward acialpolicy

is

ambivalencenducedy

core

beliefs

nderlyingacial ttitudes.

e set

twocriteria

n

order o

identify

mbivalence.

he firsts that dditional

informationhould ot educe,ndmay

n

fact eighten,

he

esponse

ari-

ability.hesecond riterias that esponse ariabilityhouldncreases

corebeliefs

nd

values onflict.rior

esearch

nstructs

s to

attend

o one

particularource

f

conflict,etween

galitarianism

nd ndividualism.o

the

xtenthatacial olicies chieve

galitarianismyrejectingndividual-

ism,

we

should

xpect

o ee

greater

esponse ariabilitymong

ndividuals

whoprize

oth

galitarianism

nd

ndividualism.

To test or he

ore

belief

onflict, e include he bsolute alues f

the

differences

f

evelsof

egalitarianism

nd

ndividualism.11

o

get

n

intuitionor

what his

perationalizationeans, ecall hat ach of these

core alue cales scoded o thatheminimumcore s0 and hemaximum

is

1.

Thus,

when

we use the

bsolute alueof thedifferences,hen

re-

spondent's

evel

of

egalitarianism

nd

ndividualismre

n

conflict

i.e.,

both re

highly rized

alues),

hen

we get

measure f

zero.

When he

respondent'sevelofegalitarianism

iffersrom he evel f ndividualism

then he

alues

renot

n

conflict,

nd

we

get positive

alue or he onflict

term.

n

this

articularase,

we

expect hat

f

the onflictf he wovalues

structures

esponse ariability,

hen his

an

only

ccur

when oth

alues

1It

s conceivablehat onflictmong he ther calesmight

lso lead to greatere-

sponse ariability.n

earlier ersionf his aper,nfact,ncludedll

possible ombinations

of scales

n a

similar est.None

of the esults o

follow

ary

ignificantly

ith

he esults

ofthe ully aturatedest.We preferhe implerest fconflict

etweengalitarianismnd

individualisms it s onebasedupon he tandingiterature. e can think

f no

similarly

motivatedeason oexpect onflictmong ny ther air f values.




17/31

360 R. MichaelAlvarez nd John rehm

are

n

agreement.ence,

f

mbivalences the ppropriate

haracterization,

weexpect hat he oefficientnthismeasureobe negative

nd ignificant.

A secondwaynwhich hese calesmightnfluenceariabilitynracial

attitudess via a

kind

f measurementffect. nidermanndcolleagues

(SnidermanndHagen1985;SnidermanndPiazza 1993;Snidermannd

Tetlock 986)have rgued hat esearchershould ot

hold hat pposition

toracial olicy s an ndicationfracism,ince pposition

oracial olicy

might e groundedn nonracialbjections. his s tantamounto holding

that acists rerelativelyixedn their ppositionoracial olicy; ut hat

nonracists ight e quite ariablenattitudesbout acial olicy.We esti-

mate second etofheteroskedasticrobitmodelswhich nclude he wo

primary

acial ore

values,modem acism

nd antiblacktereotyping,

n

thevariance unction.urexpectations that eople

whoaremore acist

on these

cales

will

have ower ariance,

ence hat he

ign

f

thedirect

effectsfmodem

acism

nd antiblack

tereotyping

hould

e

negative. 2

2.4 Results of the HeteroskedasticProbit Models

We

present

urresults

rganized y

the

pecification

f

thevariance

function:he conflict pecifications in Table1, nd he linear peci-

fications

in

Table

2.

Each tablegivesestimates

ormodel oefficients,

standardrrors,

nd

X2

tests oth or he

general

it

f

themodel nd for

the

presence f heteroskedasticity.

Estimationf the hoicefunctionields esults

hich hed ight n

the urrent

ebates bout

which ore

beliefs

tructurehoices bout acial

policies.

Across

ll

ofthemodelswe

estimated,

nly

ne ofthe

ix

scales

significantlyffectedupportor acial olicy:modem acism. espite

he

weaknessesf he articular easure,nevery pecificationf he ariance

model,

or ach of thefour

ependentariables,

hemodem acism cale

is far nd way he argestoefficientn themodel.

n every pecification,

themodem

acism

ariables

statisticallyignificant

tp

<

.05 or better.

Furthermore,

he oefficientn modem

acism

s one of only

wo

of the

coefficientsn the ix varia-bleshat s always orrectlyigned negative).

We find his

o

be

somewhat

ronic,

hat he

modem acism

measure

er-

forms

est, espiteignificant

ffortsomeasure ival

ypotheses.galitari-

anism

s

also

a

significantredictor

f

racial

olicy hoice,

uch hat

hose

12We lso nclude deologyn thevariance unction,n order o control or similar

effectuchthat iberalsmaybe more ariable n their pinions bout acialpolicy han

conservatives.s the eaderwillnote elow, his ffect id notmaterialize. e explored

anotherariationfthismodelwherein e scaled deological elf-placemento reflectx-

tremismi.e., xtremeiberals nd xtremeonservativescore tthemaximum, oderates

at theminimum),ndthere as againno effectf deology n variance.




18/31

Table

1.

Heteroskedastic

robitEstimates,

991

Race and Politics

Survey:Conflict

pecificationf

Values

Variable

Housing Set-Asides

Taxes University

Choice Model

Constant

1.235* 0.350

0.0-19

0.246

(0.337) (0.250) (0.713)

(0.258)

Dummy

-0.536* -0.138

-0.003 1.022*

(0.153) (0.100) (0.707)

(0.160)

Dummy

-0.591* 0.063

.019

(0.167) (0.089)

(.073)

Dummy X Dummy -0.036 -.003

(0.126) (.707)

Modem Racism

-1.006* -1.292* -0.866* -1.841*

(0.297) (0.284) (0.374)

(0.316)

Individualism

0.129

-0.741*

0.309 -0.608*

(0.271) (0.298)

(0.203) (0.277)

Antiblack

tereotypes -0.229 0.088 0.002 0.271

(0.240) (0.207)

(0.164) (0.220)

Authoritarianism -0.450

0.148 0.053 0.154

(0.258) (0.193) (0.156)

(0.230)

Anti-Semitism -0.428* 0.626* -0.257 0.416*

(0.232) (0.234)

(0.177)

(0.201)

Egalitarianism

0.362 0.566* 0.402

0.617*

(0.255) (0.281)

(0.218)

(0.214)

Ideology -0.040

-0.059

-0.006

-0.058

(0.025) (0.028)

(0.014) (0.023)

Variance Model

Domain

Specific nformation

0.490 -0.102 -0.165

0.199

(0.338) (0.227)

(0.445) (0.232)

Chronic

nformation

-0.715* -0.758*

-1.046*

-0.217*

(0.295) (0.215) (0.414) (0.201)

lEG

-

INI

0.012 -0.075

-0.185 0.234

(0.404) (0.403)

(0.565)

(0.320)

Ideology

0.069 0.056

-0.029 0.009

(0.044) (0.046)

(0.060) (0.031)

N

1363

1396 1359 1494

X2

182* 207* 101*

399*

Het.Test

10.5* 13.8*

9.8 2.4

Dummyl

nd

Dummy2

re

question-specificariations

n

wording,

ee themain ext

for etails. p < .05.




19/31

Table 2. HeteroskedasticrobitEstimates, 991 Race and Politics

Survey: inear Specificationf Values

Variable Housing Set-Asides Taxes University

Choice Model

Constant 1.450*

0.313

0.340

0.665

(0.490) (0.292) (0.215)

(0.424)

Dummy -0.608* -0.185 0.142 1.826*

(0.201) (0.112) (0.085)

(0.451)

Dummy -0.663* 0.059 -0.266

(0.225) (0.095) (0.106)

Dummy

X

Dummy -0.038 -0.126

(0.143) (0.103)

Modem Racism

-1.135* -1.674* -0.905* -3.016*

(0.394) (0.533) (0.293)

(0.780)

Individualism

0.096 -0.837*

0.105 - 1.007*

(0.282) (0.347) (0.175)

(0.481)

Antiblack

tereotypes

-0.243 -0.378 -0.061 0.259

(0.250) (0.305) (0.153)

(0.389)

Authoritarianism -0.538 0.071 0.321 -0.050

(0.299) (0.225) (0.213) (0.405)

Anti-Semitism -0.488

0.728* -0.247

0.194

(0.265) (0.287) (0.169) (0.292)

Egalitarianism 0.407 1.007* 0.475*

0.943*

(0.255) (0.364) (0.216)

(0.327)

Ideology -0.043 0.000 -0.031 -0.062

(0.027) (0.000) (0.017)

(0.039)

Variance Model

Domain

Specific

nformation

0.436 -0.120 -0.040 0.390

(0.339) (0.211) (0.259)

(0.235)

Chronic nformation

-0.679* -0.769* -0.724* -0.203

(0.302) (0.209) (0.274) (0.199)

ModemRacism -0.171 -0.320 -1.273* 0.515

(0.330) (0.334) (0.368) (0.264)

Antiblack

tereotypes

0.449 1.268*

0.719

0.459

(0.429) (0.424) (0.412)

(0.328)

Ideology

0.065

0.000 0.105

0.009

(0.045) (0.000) (0.048)

(0.032)

N

1363

1396

1359 1494

X2

182* 207* 101* 399*

Het. Test 12.5* 39.6*

19.1*

9.4

Dummy and Dummy2 requestion-specificariationsnwording,ee themain ext

for e-tails.

p

<

.05.




20/31

ARE

AMERICANSAMBIVALENTTOWARDS

RACIAL

POLICIES? 363

respondentsho re

more

galitarianremoreikely o

supporthe acial

policy.

he

coefficientsor

galitarianismn the hoice

models realmost

always ignificant,lthoughlsosubstantiallymallerhan he orrespond-

ing

coefficientsor

modem

acism.13

Turningo he emainingour

ariables, e

found hatntiblacktereo-

typing as not

consistentredictor

f oppositionoracial

olicy.Under

the

onflictpecification,he

oefficientn

antiblacktereotypingas of

the

orrect

ignonly

nce.Under

he

inear

pecification,he oefficient

on

antiblack

tereotypingas negative

n

three fthe

our

ases,

butnever

statisticallyignificant.urthermore,e

have

valuatedhe ossibilityhat

the ollinearityf antiblacktereotypingnd modem acism ndermined

the oefficientorntiblack

tereotyping.

henwe

excludemodem acism

from he

choicemodel, ntiblack

tereotyping

oes not

ppreciably

m-

prove

s an

explanatoryariable.

None

of

the

remaining

hree cales

individualism,

uthoritarianism,

and

nti-Semitism)

chieves

ny

degree

f

consistency

cross

he our e-

pendent

ariables. he coefficientsn

the

hree

ariables re oftenncor-

rectly

igned, lthough

arelytatistically

istinguishablerom

ero.14

3We

eplicatedhe nalysis

n

two

ways. irst, e ran he

nalysis ithout

he

modem

racismmeasures,

nd here ere few ubstantive

hanges.

uthoritarianismnd ntiblack

stereotyping

ecame egative,tatisticallyignificant

ariablesor ach f

he our ependent

variables nder ach

f he hree ariance

odelpecifications.o the xtent

hat hemodem

racismmeasure works

because t ncludes olicy

hoices

s

evidence f

ttitudesoward

race i.e., hemodem

acismmeasure

s endogenous),

hen nemight referhe pecification

without odem acism. he

substantiveesults ith

espect o thevariancemodelwere

unchanged.

econd,we replicatedhe nalysis sing

nly one-item

easure f modem

racism, heremodem acismsmeasured y the mount f anger bout pokesmenor

minoritiesho re lways

omplaining. ith he

ne-item easure fmodem acism nly

three hanges

ccur o the esults.he estimatedffect

fmodem acism

cross ll models

is diminishedy

roughlyalf but emainsuite

tatisticallyignificant)

hile he stimated

effectsf egalitarianismnd

deology

n

the hoicefunction

ncrease.

ubstantively,his

means hat he ffectsf

modem acism

nd galitarianismre lmostf he

amemagnitude

on

the our acial olicy hoiceswe

examine, henwe use this

measure

f

modem acism.

Little hangesn

our stimates

f

thevarianceunction,ith nly he

stimatedffectf

chronicnformation

n

thehousingmodels

in

both

pecificationsf

the

variance

unction)

diminishinglightly,lthoughhe tandardrror or his oefficientncreasesnough o

renderhe arameter

tatisticallynsignificant.ur

ubstantiveonclusionsrenot nfluenced

by

this

measure f modem acism ither.

140f heracebelief

cales we

construct,

our

modem

acism,

ntiblack

tereotypes,

authoritarianismnd

anti-Semitism)

ere

relativelytrong

measures

n

our

confirmatory

factor

nalysis.

wo

egalitarianism

nd

ndividualism)

ere

dmittedly

eaker

measures,

however,

hich

may uggest

he

resence

f

measurementrror

n

these

wo

cales.

We

do

not elieve hat hismeasurementrror

nfluencesur

esults

n

n appreciable anner.

irst,

egalitarianismerformselatively

ell

n

he

models

resented

n

Table

1

and .

As

discussed




21/31

364 R. MichaelAlvarez nd

John rehm

Our primarynterests in thevariance

model.We turn irst o the

heteroskedasticity

ikelihoodatio

est, rinted

t the

ottom

f

each

table.

With degrees ffreedom,he ritical alue or heheteroskedasticityike-

lihood atio est n the onflictpecification

s 9.5 (atp

<

.05). The first

three

models xceed he utoff,mplyinghat esponsesreheterogenous.

The astmodel universitydmissions)oes

not xceed he ritical alue,

andwe

cannot eject

he

ssumption

fhomogeneousesponse. he inear

specificationas

five

egrees

f

freedom,

ndthe elevantriticalalue s

11.07 atp

<

.05). Again,

we can

reject

he ssumptionf homogeneity

inthefirsthreemodels, utnot hefourth.

Next, onsiderhe stimatedarametersf he ariancemodels. etter

(chronically)

nformed

espondents

re

ess

ambivalentbout acial olicy

than ess

nformed

espondents.

he

effect

f chronicnformation

n

the

variancemodel

s

alwaysnegative,

nd statisticallyignificanttp

<

.05

or

better

or

very

ariationfthe

housing

nd set-asides

uestions.The

coefficient

n nformations

negative

or he atterwo

uestions,lthough

only lightlyarger

han he

tandard

rror.)

he

effectf

domain pecific

information,owever,s

never

istiiiguishable

rom

ero

o a

statistically

significantegree.

Thedistinctionetween ambivalence

nd uncertaintys that d-

ditionalnformation

educes

ncertainty,

utdoes notnecessarilyeduce

ambivalence.f

the

respondent

s

in

a

state

f nternalized

onflict,

hen

additional

nformationnlyheightens

he tate f conflict. ith

ttitudes

toward

bortionolicy,

we demonstratedhat etter

nformed

espondents

weremore mbivalentnder

hard

policy

hoices

where

ore

values

were

n

conflict),nd

ess

ambivalent

nder

easy policy

hoices

where

onecorevaluedominates).

The consistent

egativeign

n

chronic

nformationmplies hat ari-

ance

in

attitudesoward acial

policy

s best

characterized

y

uncer-

tainty,

ndnot

y

ambivalence.

oes

this indinguggesthat

he e-

bate

on

racial

olicymightctually

ecome

onsensual,.e.,

that

ariance

in attitudes

ight

e reduced?We hold on further

nterpretation

f

the

effectsf chronicnformation

ntil he

onclusion.

in the ext,t s always orrectlyigned nd tatisticallyignificant,lthough ith weaker

effecthanmodem acism. econd, ndividualisms significantnfourf ightmodelsand

is correctlyignedn three);n the

ther

ourmodels, he stimatedffectf ndividualism

on racial olicy hoice annot e distinguishedrom ero.Also, hese rehighly onlinear

models,o

if

measurementrror aspresent

n

onevariable

hat

ught obias he emaining

coefficientsn unpredictableanners. otice hatwhenwe use egalitarianismnd ndividu-

alism o specify alue conflictn Table

1

that he ddition f these erms, hilepoorly

measured,o notchange he stimatedesults or he hoicefunctionn an appreciable

mannercompare o Table2). This tronglyuggests

hat

measurement

rrorn these

wo

scales s

not

nfluencing

ur stimatedesults.




22/31

ARE AMERICANS

AMBIVALENTTOWARDS

RACIAL POLICIES? 365

Thefirstf our

pecificationsfthevariance

model Table 1) posited

thatndividualariancen

attitudesoward acial

olicywas duetoconflict

betweenorevalues fegalitarianismnd ndividualism.or nstance, e

expected hat respondent

hohad high, oughlyqual evelsof esteem

for

oth

galitarianismnd ndividualismould

avegreatermplicitari-

ance n his

or

her

policy hoices. he

conflict

model ncorporateshe

absolute

alue f he ifferencentwo cales.Our

xpectationas that he

signs n

the oefficientsor

hese conflict erms ouldbe negative.

Instead, nly wo fthe

our ermsrenegative,

ndnone restatisti-

cally ignificant.

We obtain similar attern

rom

fully

aturatedetof

conflictermsmong he ixscales.)Overall, newouldhave o conclude

that

onflictetweenorevalues oesnot

ccount or ariancen

attitudes,

with

onflict easured

n

thisway.

We

set

two riteriao

distinguish

mbivalencerom

ncertainty:

hat

the

ffect f nformations to increase

mbivalence,

ecausedissonance

in corebeliefs hould e irresolvable. ith

espect o

the

fourmeasures

of

ttitudesowardacial

olicy

nthis

ssay,wefound

xactly

he

pposite:

informationeducesndividual

ariance,

nd here as no evidence f

on-

flictn corevalues s a source fvariance.

An

alternative

onceptionf

he

ariancenattitudes

oward

acial

ol-

icy s that he fit

ofattitudesoward acial

olicy

s a

function

f

racial

attitudesaries

y

he evel f

racial ttitudes.

n

other ords,acistsmight

have ittle

ariancen

opposition

o

racialpolicy, utnonracists ight e

quitevariable

n support

or

acialpolicy, ince

ppositiono that olicy

mighte

grounded

n

nonracialoundations.

n

order

o evaluate

his

on-

ception,

e

nclude irect

ffects

f

modernacism nd ntiblack

tereotyp-

ing the

wo

trongestredictorsf

oppositionoracial olicy) n the ari-ancemodelTable2). Ifthis lternativeonceptionolds,wewould xpect

that he

igns n

the

varianceoefficientsormodern

acism nd ntiblack

stereotyping

hould

enegative,.e., hat igher

evels feach ead to ess

variance.

Overall,

his

rgument

or he

ource

f

ndividual

ariation

ails.

Of

the

ight

oefficientsn

the

irect

ffects,

hree re

negative,

nd

only

ne

of

these o a

statisticallyignificant

egree.

oneof themeasures f anti-

black

tereotyping

re

negative,

nd ne s

statisticallyignificant.

ut here

is some ndicationhathe rgumentightoldformodernacism. hree

of

the our

erms

n

modernacism re

negative,

ne

to

a

statisticallyig-

nificant

egree.

he

fourth odel s

also

not

heterogeneous,y

the

ikeli-

hoodratio est.

An

implication

f

this ranklyrovisionalesults that t

is

touchy

o

nfer rom

pposition

r

upport

or acial

olicy

ack oracial

attitudes. ith t

east

wo f he our

olicy

hoices

set-asides

nd

axes),

thosewhowere owest n themodern

acism

cale

were f

widest ariance




23/31

366

R.

Michael

Alvarez and JohnBrehm

in

their

hoices,meaning

hat

hose

who

were, y

this

measure,

ot acist

mighttill e in oppositiono policy.

2.5

Magnitude fEstimated

ffects

The estimatedffectsf racial

values nd differentpecifications

f

heterogeneousesponses

llowonly or ough ests f

the

hypotheses

e

havepresentedarlier. ust s withmore ommon inary hoice

models,

the eteroskedastic

robit arameters

re

difficult

o

nterpret

n their wn.

Here

we

turn o another ayof presenting

he

stimated

ffectsf racial

values nd

deology ponpolicy

hoice;by examininghe first

iffer-

ences for ach ofthe mportantight-handide variables.

The first ifference ethodologys relativelyimple King

1989).

Herewe set

achright-hand

idevariable o the ample

mean

value;

with

these

alues nd

he stimatedoefficients,e candeterminehe robabil-

ity

hat

hypotheticalespondent

ould

ive particular

nswero

survey

question. hen, or particularndependent

ariable

say

modern acism

inthehousingmodel),we ncrease

he alue f hat ariable y wo ample

standard

eviations,

nd hen

alculate

he

robability

h

alvarez, m. & brehm, j. are americans ambivalent towards racial policies

Documents