Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1976, Vol. 34, No. 4, 590-598

Differential Social Perception and Attribution of IntergroupViolence: Testing the Lower Limits of

Stereotyping of Blacks

Birt L. DuncanUniversity of California, Berkeley

In a modified 4 X 4 factorial design with race (black-white) of the harm-doerand race (black-white) of the victim as the major factors, the phenomenon ofdifferential social perception of intergroup violence was established. White sub-jects, observing a videotape of purported ongoing interaction occuring in an-other room, labeled an act (ambiguous shove) as more violent when it wasperformed by a black than when the same act was perpetrated by a white.That is, the concept of violence was more accessible when viewing a blackthan when viewing a white committing the same act. Causal attributions werealso found to be divergent. Situation attributions were preferred when theharm-doer was white, and person (dispositional) attributions were preferredin the black-protagonist conditions. The results are discussed in terms of per-ceptual threshold, stereotypy, and attributional biases.

It is now generally accepted that systems ofvalues and beliefs are important determinantsof individual behavior. However, we knowlittle "about the lower limits of these influ-ences, about their capacity to reach towardthe regions of human experience which appearas immediately given, as the incontrovertibleevidence of our senses" (Tajfel, 1969, p. 322).The many studies related to the "new look"in perception have adequately demonstratedthat perception is not necessarily "veridical"and that an individual's perception of a stimu-lus object or event is influenced by his par-ticular needs, wishes, and expectations of themoment—we tend to perceive what we wishor expect to perceive (Merton, 1957). A clas-sic experiment in the "new look" traditionwas performed by Bruner and Goodman(1947) who found that the perceiver tendedto accentuate the size of valued objects (i.e.,coins) and that this tendency was especially

The author would like to thank Joy Stapp andNancy Duncan for their helpful comments on a draftof this article and Mel Gary and Richard Ashmorefor their assistance in the pilot work.

A version of this study was presented at the 8thAnnual National Association of Black PsychologistsConvention in Boston, August 1975.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Birt L.Duncan, Health and Medical Sciences Program, Uni-versity of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California94720.

pronounced among subjects with a poor back-ground. The literature concerning the rela-tionship between motivation and perception isvery extensive (Allport, 1958; Bruner, 1958;Secord & Backman, 1964). The research find-ings to date indicate that the social and cul-tural background of an individual does affectthe manner in which he perceives the worldaround him.

Kelly (1955) has formulated a theory ofpersonality that leads to predictions similar tothose derived from theoretical formulationsbased on social and cultural determinants ofsocial perception, although he emphasizes theconstrued replication of events and cognitiveaspects of behavior rather than motivation.For Kelly, every man is a "scientist" inter-ested in the accurate prediction and controlof future events. His predictions are deter-mined by the manner in which the individualhas construed the replication of past events.Kelly's theory of personal constructs in someways resembles Brunswick's (1956) formula-tion of the probabilistic use of stimulus cues.

Basic to Kelly's theory is the function ofconstructs (or concepts) in determining howa person construes a stimulus object. Simi-larly, Bruner (1957) contends that the processof perception involves other processes, such asinference, categorization, judgment, and pre-diction. According to Bruner, a person neces-

590

S©CIAL PERCEPTION 591

sarily "knows" the world only in terms ofpreviously formed categories or concepts. All-port (1958) emphasizes the role of categoriza-tion in the development and maintenance ofstereotypes:

The human mind must think with the aid of cate-gories [the term is equivalent here to generalizations].Once formed, categories are the basis of normal pre-judgement. We cannot possibly avoid this process.Orderly living depends upon it.We may say that the process of categorization hasfive important characteristics.(1) It forms large classes and clusters, for guiding

our daily adjustments . . .(2) Categorization assimilates as much as it can to

the cluster . . .(3) The category enables us quickly to identify a

related object . . .(4) The category saturates all that it contains with

the same ideational and emotional flavor . . .(5) Categories may be more or less rational. (All-

port, 1958, pp. 19-21)

In order to avoid a lengthy discussion ofthe distinction between a category and astereotype, we shall here accept the definitionof stereotyping offered by Tajfel (1969, p.423): "the general inclination to place a per-son in categories according to some easily andquickly identifiable characteristic such as age,sex, ethnic membership, nationality, or occu-pation, and then to attribute to him qualities'believed to be typical of members of that cate-gory." The relationship between this definitionof stereotyping and Airport's five character-istics of the process of categorization is obvi-ous.

One of the stereotypes frequently applied toblacks is that they are impulsive and given tocrimes and violence. If one believes thatblacks are more prone to violent acts thanwhites, it is reasonable to assume that the con-cept of violence is more accessible when view-ing a black than when viewing a white com-mitting the same act (see Bruner, 1957). Inother words, the threshold for labeling an actas violent is lower when viewing a black actorthan when viewing a white actor. The presentstudy attempts to test this proposition.

The perception of intergroup violence waschosen as the experimental situation becauseof its contemporary relevance and the highprobability that it is of concern to people intheir day-to-day activities. Many membersof our society feel extremely threatened by

the possibility of intergroup violence, recallingthe outbursts of the late sixties and the scat-tered recent outbursts such as in Boston,Massachusetts. However, it is not meant, byimplication, that social perception is uniqueto race relationships. Given the increasedpolarization of various groups in our societyalong several dimensions (e.g., age, sex, poli-tics, dress) differential social perception isprobably contributing to the misunderstand-ing among many groups.

Asch (1948), employing written communi-cation, performed a now classic experimentthat is relevant to the hypotheses to betested. He attributed identical statements tovarious persons and found that the meaningof the statement varied with the hypotheticalauthor. A statement written by Thomas Jef-ferson was usually interpreted positively, butthe same statement was viewed negativelywhen attributed to a leading Communist fig-ure. Asch has argued that the subjects' re-sponses did not indicate a reevaluation of thestatements but actually represented a changein the object of judgment (Asch, 1940).

One purpose of the present design was toestablish the phenomenon of differential socialperception in regard to intergroup violence.That is, subjects are likely to label an act asmore violent when it is performed by a blackthan when the same act is perpetrated by awhite. The study also seeks to go one stepbeyond perceptual phenomena in the Bruns-wick (1956) sense by looking to what causallocus intergroup behavior becomes attributed.At a theoretical level, it concerns the processthrough which an individual assigns causes tothe behavior he observes and the consequencesof his resulting beliefs about the causality.Heider's (1958) attribution theory derivesdirectly from Brunswick's treatment of per-ception. Just as the perceiving individual mustintegrate the highly variable cues given thestimulus representation in order to "infer" therelatively unchanging object that gave rise tothem, the attributing individual must inte-grate the cues given in order to infer the morestable factors that gave rise to them. Kelley's(1967) conceptualization, which is deriveddirectly from Heider, suggests the cognitiveprocesses that might be engaged in by the

592 BIRT L. DUNCAN

individual during this "inference." Anotherpurpose of the experiment was to look at theindividual's interpretations of the intergroupviolence behavioral sequence in the context ofstimulus, situation, and person attributionalchoices postulated by Kelley. That is, thepurpose was to determine whether it wassomething about the stimulus that caused theindividual to act in that way (violently),something about the person, or somethingabout the situation (particular circumstances).Are the observers (subjects) willing to takethe behavior more or less at "face value," asreflecting a stable disposition (person attri-butions), and attach insufficient weight tocircumstantial determinants (situation attri-butions) of the behavior, as has been demon-strated in previous research (Jones & Harris,1967) for both black and white harm-doers?If the threshold for labeling a behavior asviolent is lower when the harm-doer is black,will the same perceptual incompleteness holdfor "slim-evidenced" person attribution in thecase of white harm-doers?

METHOD

Stimulus Materials

Four students (two white and two black) fromOrange Coast College rehearsed a script, looselyconstructed in order to adopt their respective patois.The content of the scripts, however, was not alteredby this adaptation. The script was initially developedaround two of the "dilemma of choice" items on therisk-taking questionnaire constructed by Wallach andKogan (1962). These hypothetical decision situa-tions offered a scenario in which an altercation be-tween the confederates could be developed. Twelveversions (4 race-relation conditions X 3 confederatestimulus conditions) of the script were videotaped.Thus, every possible confederate pairing by race,harm-doer, and victim variables was provided.

Overview

The major dimensions in the factorial matrix werethe race (black-white) of the harm-doer and therace (black-white) of the victim. The experimentalsession consisted of a videotape of two males dis-cussing a risky-shift problem (Brown, 1965, Chap.13); however, the subject who observed the tapewas led to believe that the discussion was actuallytaking place in another room. The subject was askedto evaluate the behavior of the "actors" six times atprecise intervals, which were signaled to him by theexperimenter during the tape. The major dependentmeasures were the subjects' final evaluations (sixthrating), which were designed to coincide with the

heated discussion and ambiguous shove near the endof the tape.

Subjects

The subjects were 104 white undergraduates at theUniversity of California, Irvine. They were recruitedby responding to signs that displayed an offer of$1.50 for participating 30 minutes in a study called"interpersonal behavior research." Subjects partici-pated individually and were randomly assigned to 1of the 12 race-relation by confederate stimulus condi-tions.

Procedure

When the subject arrived for his appointment, hefound a white experimenter tampering with thevideo system in the taping room. The camera was onand the subject was directed to look at himself onthe screen (most subjects found this quite amusingsince they had never seen themselves before on atelevision screen). The experimenter, becoming moreserious, stated, "Before anything else, let me pay youfor participating in this study." Whereupon, the sub-ject was asked to sign a receipt (administrative de-tail unrelated to the study) and was paid thepromised $1.50. The experimenter continued as fol-lows:

There are actually three people scheduled for eachsession. I scheduled you a few minutes ahead ofthe other two so I could familiarize you with theset-up. You will be observing the other two peopleby means of the closed circuit TV system which Ihave just shown you. You will be watching fromanother room because in the past we have foundsubjects felt more at ease if they weren't beingdirectly observed.

The subject was then led down the hall to anobservation booth, being made aware by the experi-menter of the cord (bogus experimental prop) fromthe taping room to the booth. After the subject wasseated in the booth, the experimenter presented thesubject with the dependent measure rating formssaying,

Here are your instructions. You can read themwhile I'm talking to the other two subjects, butfirst I want to show you the rating scales andtell you a little about our research. This study ispart of a project aimed at developing a new sys-tem for rating of interpersonal behavior. As youcan see this new system involves quite simplecategories of behavior. This is because it is intendedfor nonprofessional observers. Note that your rat-ings occur immediately after I signal you withthe buzzer. I will also be able to control the closedcircuit TV from my booth next door, so I willturn it off briefly in order to let you completeyour ratings. You won't have a lot of time sorespond quickly. Now you will do ratings of twoseries of interactions. The first is a practice. I willreturn after this first practice scries to answer any

SOCIAL PERCEPTION 593

questions you might have. Please do not leave thisbooth in order to ask me questions. I'll return toanswer them.

Independent Variables

The subject was randomly assigned to one of thefollowing experimental conditions (tapes): blackprotagonist-white victim; white protagonist-blackvictim; black protagonist-black victim; white pro-tagonist-white victim. All possible pairings of theconfederates were made in order to avoid interpre-tation of effects due to confederate differences, thusmaking 12 conditions. When the tape was started,the subject, looking at a TV monitor through hisbooth window, saw the following purported (bogus)live interaction: The experimenter, seating the twoconfederates in the taping room (seen earlier by thesubjects), gave the following instructions:

Why don't you take seats over there. Would youplease open the folders and take out the topsheet? Today you will participate in a study ofdecision making. You will be asked to read thetwo situations that are included in your folders.In each case the central person in the story mustmake a decision between two courses of action,both of which have positive and negative aspects.Your role is to act as advisor to the centralperson in the story and indicate the minimumprobability of success that you would demandbefore recommending the alternative that mighthave the more desirable outcome. You shouldread the stories individually, come to some deci-sion on your own, and then reach a common deci-sion between the two of you. Any questions? Iwill be in another room but I'll be able to observeyou by means of closed circuit TV. So, if youhave any problems make it known and I'll comeback.

The "warm-up" risky situation discussed by theconfederates on tape coincided with the practicerating of the subject. The hypothetical situationdiscussed concerned a man with a severe heart ail-ment who must seriously curtail his customary wayof life unless he undergoes a delicate medical opera-tion that could either cure him completely or provefatal.

The subject was given two practice ratings,checked by the experimenter to ensure that the ratingsystem was understood and used correctly. The"practice run" also established whether the manipu-lation was credible. Satisfied that the procedure waswithout difficulty, the experimenter went back to hisbooth, where the buzzer and controls for the video-tape monitors were located, and began the secondrating session. Before leaving the subject he mumbledsomething about having to go check on the "othersubjects" (confederates).

The second rating sequence was developed aroundthe situation involving an electrical engineer whomight either stick with his present job at a modestbut adequate salary or take a new job offering con-

siderably more money but no long-term security. Theconfederates settled into the cooperative decision-making task. (For rating purposes, two cards labeled"A" and "B" were on the table next to the harm-doer and victim, respectively.) The following excerptsfrom the dialogue reflect the growing tension leadingup to the ambiguous shoving event:

B: Aw come on! You're saying that he shouldtake the job when it's likely that the newbusiness will not survive. At least he can counton his company lasting. He may never be richbut at least he will be able to support hisfamily and he can count on retiring with somemoney.

A: You must be crazy! . . . a better pension planthan his present firm.

B: That's not true! All companies have somethinglike a cost of living increase built into their payscales.

A: Well, we don't know. You're just guessing atthat. It's not in this story. The real point iswhether he is willing to stay in some stagnantposition or take a little risk and get ahead.

B: But you're forgetting that the company willprobably fold.

A: You're just too damn conservative. With anattitude like that you'll never get ahead.

B: What do you mean by that?

The dialogue became more heated leading to B shov-ing A. At that point the subject was signaled to ratethe interaction. This behavior-rating sequence consti-tuted the major dependent variable. Almost immedi-ately after the shove sequence and signal by theexperimenter, the subject's monitor was turned off,and the experimenter noisily hurried down the hallto the taping room as if something was wrong,returning shortly thereafter to the subject's boothmumbling audibly about not expecting them (theconfederates) to get so heated up. The experimenterthen collected the six completed rating forms, andasked the subject to complete a short questionnairebefore leaving.

Dependent Measure Instructions

The rating system employed as the dependentmeasure was a simplified version of the InteractionProcess Analysis (IPA; Bales, 1970). The IPA wassimplified by reducing the number of rating categoriesand requiring only periodic, not continuous, ratingsof the interaction under consideration.

The detailed instructions written on the IPA scor-ing pad with which the subject was made familiarread as follows:

The observer should make one rating each time heis given a signal by the group supervisor or experi-mental technician. Upon hearing the signal theobserver should rate the behavior which took placeimmediately prior to the signal. In making therating the observer should do, in order, the fol-lowing things: (1) decide which person (A or B)was emitting the behavior to be rated and then

594 BIRT L. DUNCAN

circle either A or B at the top of the rating sheet;(2) decide into which of the 10 major categoriesthe behavior falls and circle the number of thatmajor category; (3) indicate whether the behaviorwas of relatively low intensity or high intensityby making a check mark on the scale to the rightof the major category being used; (4) fill out thethree subscales under the major category beingused. As soon as all these steps have been com-pleted, turn over the filled out rating sheet andget ready for the next rating signal. If the behaviorto be rated does not fall into one of the ten cate-gories provided, circle #11 (Uncodable) andbriefly describe the behavior. Use this category,however, only as a very last resort. It is impor-tant to note that each rating should be done ona separate sheet and that only one person (eitherA or B) and only one category of behavior (oneof the ten categories) are scored on each rating.Also, a rating is to be done only when the signalis given.

The 10 major categories were dramatizes, gives infor-mation, gives opinion, gives suggestion, asks for in-formation, asks for opinion, asks for suggestion,playing around, aggressive behavior, and violent be-havior, followed by an 8-point intensity scale. Eachmajor category was followed by three 8-point sub-scales appropriately labeled as follows: provoked-unprovoked, intentional-unintentional, and conse-quential-trivial in the case of the aggressive behaviorand violent behavior major categories; emotional-calm, enthusiastic-unenthusiastic, and show-off-mod-est for the dramatizes and playing around categories;tactful-tactless, intelligent-unintelligent, and autorcratic-democratic for the major categories of givesinformation, gives opinion, and gives suggestion;inhibited-uninhibited, demanding-undemanding, andsoft-loud for the major categories of asks for infor-mation, asks for opinion, and asks for suggestion.

The final questionnaire contained items relevant tothe attribution process used by the subject to makehis final rating. The experimenter introduced thequestionnaire by stating

Pick out one sequence of behavior which left animpression on you and answer the questions on theform as they pertain to that interaction. Betteryet, why don't you use the last sequence of be-havior which you rated [reminding the subjects ofthe altercation in which B pushed A].

The experimenter gave the impression that any be-havioral sequence would do but had decided on thespur of the moment that the final interaction ratingwould be perfect. These questions were answered ona 9-point scale and concerned (a) the extent to whichthe observed behavior of A or B should be attributedto situational forces, (b) the extent to which thebehavior of A or B should be attributed to him per-sonally (person), (c) the extent to which it shouldbe attributed to the issue discussed (stimulus), and(d) other (some combination of a and/or b and/or c).

After completing the final questionnaire, the subject

was completely debriefed as to the purpose of theexperiment. All of the deceptions were carefullyexplained and their reasons were outlined. The de-briefing attested to the effectiveness of the manipula-tions to the extent that the subject thought he wasindeed part of a triad and was privy to an ongoinginteraction rather than a previously taped sequenceof behavior.

Quality of the Stimulus Tapes

Forty students from University High School servedas the treatment blind judges. They were exposed tothe 12 stimulus tapes and asked to rate them. Thefollowing instructional rationale was offered:

It has been found that many people use the fol-lowing characteristics in describing other people.Each characteristic is represented graphically by ascale which runs continuously from one labeledextreme to the other with varying degrees beingindicated by numbers. Please indicate the locationon the scale that you believe best described oneof the subjects you have just observed by circlingthe appropriate number. Do not restrict yourselfto a particular range on the scale, feel free to placeyour responses anywhere on the scale. You shouldrate the subject on each scale; do not skip any.Also you should indicate how certain you are ofthe accuracy of each of your ratings by circling oneof the numbers on the certainty scale to the rightof the scale containing the adjective. Each subjectshould be rated separately and two sets of scalesare included for this purpose.

The 9-point bipolar scales included sensitive to oth-ers-insensitive to others, critical of others-tolerant ofothers, competent-incompetent, nonaggressive-aggres-sive, honest-dishonest, likable-not likable, competi-tive-cooperative, moral-immoral, individualist-con-formist, hostile-affectionate, unfair-fair, unintelligent-intelligent, and liberal-conservative. Included witheach scale were 4-point certainty ratings.

Analysis of the treatment-blind judges' ratings ofthe black confederate and white confederate for eachstimulus tape revealed no between-condition differ-ences. If qualitative biases existed, particularly atthe point in the tape of the altercation, the minimumexpectation would be differences in the nonaggressive-aggressive ratings. Further, no between-confederatedifferences were found. These findings are of consid-erable validation value and support the claim thatthe results to be reported are due to differential so-cial perception.

RESULTS

Of the initial 104 subjects, 3 left their ob-servation booth, and 5 misunderstood the ex-perimental instructions and filled out theratings incorrectly. Consequently, the analysisreported below represents the responses of 96subjects, evenly distributed across conditions.

SOCIAL PERCEPTION 595

TABLE 1MAJOR CATEGORY FREQUENCIES BY HARM-DOER/VICTIM RACE PAIRINGS

Majorcategory

Playingaround

DramatizesAggressive

behaviorViolent

behavior

Black-Black

B1-B2

01

2

5

B2-B1

00

2

6

White-White

W1-YV2

14

3

0

W2-W1

23

1

2

Harm-doer/Victim pairings

B1-W1

00

1

7

Black-White

B1-W2

10

1

6

B2-Wi

00

2

6

B2-W2

02

1

5

W1-B1

24

1

1

White-Black

Wi-B2

22

3

1

W2-B1

23

1

2

W2-B2

23

3

0

Note. Bi = Black Confederate Number 1; B2 = Black Confederate Number 2 ; WiConfederate Number 2.

= White Confederate Number 1; W2 = White

The necessity for two sets of confederates tocontrol for qualitative differences in the stim-ulus tapes formed a rather complex designfor analysis purposes. Because a confederatecould not be paired with himself, four emptycells were left, yielding 12 essential compari-son groups.

The results of this experiment were parti-tioned in several different ways. Table 1 pre-sents the subject's major category choice forall harm-doer/victim stimulus combinationsfor the sixth rating session, in which theprovocation occurred. These data offer themost cogent evidence of the effectiveness ofthe experimental manipulation. That is, thestimulus event for the sixth rating sessiongenerated differential labels for the stimulusevent, and these labels were distributed acrossappropriate major categories (i.e., playingaround, dramatizes, aggressive behavior, andviolent behavior).

These gross frequency data of Table 1 areof considerable summary importance. Exam-ining the frequencies for the black-protagonist/white-victim conditions, 75% of the subjectschose the violent behavior major category,X2(l) = 26.67, p < .01, whereas when the pro-tagonist was white and the victim was black,the behavior was labeled violent by 17%,X2(l) = 1.61, ns, of the subjects. Only 6%of the subjects perceived the behavior to beappropriately described by major categories ofplaying around or dramatizing when theperpetrator was black and victim white, com-pared with 42% in the white-harm-doer/black-victim conditions. Further analysis ofthe major category choice shows that white-protagonist/white-victim conditions are dras-

tically different from the black-protagonist/black-victim condition. The within-group(black-black) stimulus condition was labeledby 69%, x

2 ( l ) = 8.05, p < .01, of the sub-jects as violent compared with 13%, x2(O =

.49, ns, in the white-white conditions. Thisanalysis from Table 1 suggests that the sub-ject's perceptual threshold for labeling a be-havior as violent descended along the follow-ing stimulus-condition continuum: black-white> black-black > white-black > white-white(protagonist-victim).

The scores of combined intensity ratings ofmajor categories and subscales served as thedependent measure for the Race of Harm-doerX Race of Victim analysis of variance. Asexpected, there were substantial effects due torace of harm-doer, F(3, 80) = 28.23, p < .01,race of victim, F(3, 80) = 7.05, p < .01, anda significant interaction, F(9, 80) = 14.13, p< .01. Individual comparisons performed onthe data showed that subjects rated the stimu-lus behavior as more severe when perpetratedby a black against a white than subjects in thewhite harm-doer and black victim conditions(p < .01). In fact, subjects indicated that theblack-protagonist/black-victim behavior wasmore virulent than the white-harm-doer/white-victim conditions (p < .01). In all con-ditions where the white confederate is theharm-doer, the intensity of the same act per-formed by blacks became diluted descriptivelyto that of a little "horseplay."

Attributional Behavior

Analyses of variance performed on the sub-ject's attributions to causes for the "provoca-tion" behavior, which occurred in the sixth

596

Cg

35 8>- CO

°° cc oo r

8 -

6 -

a3OL

£ 4 -

2 -

o- —o

BIRT L.

Person AttributionsSituation Attributions

DUNCAN

.0

Black^Black White-! White Black-k/Vhite White-black

Harm-doer — Victim

Race Pairings

FIGURE 1. Means for the measures of attribution to person and situation.

rating session, revealed that the race of harm-doer versus race of victim independent varia-bles had marked effects on causal attributions.

The dependent variable, something aboutthe situation caused the behavior (of the pro-tagonist), yielded main effects of race ofharm-doer, F(3,18) = 15.13, p < .01, andrace of victim, F(3, 80) = 4.57, p < .01, anda significant interaction, F(9} 80) = 12.72,p < .01.

Comparisons between the mean data, usingthe studentized range statistic, showed thatthe subjects in the white-harm-doer/black-victim conditions and white-harm-doer/white-victim conditions differed significantly fromthe other conditions. The preference for thesituation attribution causal mode was notevident in attributions to stimulus.

Figure 1 shows that in the conditions wherethe harm-doer was black, there was a dramaticreversal in the attributional behavior from thewhite harm-doer conditions. Person attribu-tions were the causal locus, demonstrated bysignificant main effects of race of harm-doer,

F(3, 80) = 8.89, p < .01, and race of victim,JF(3, 80) = 11.72, p<.01. The significantinteraction, F(9,80) = 6.39, p < .01, showsthe confluence of race of harm-doer and victimin determining attributional behavior.

DISCUSSION

The findings are disquieting, though theyconfirm intuitions and social indicators. Whiteuniversity subjects perceived the "somewhatambiguous," certainly less than blatant shoveas violent (and labeled it thusly) for all con-ditions in which the black was the harm-doer,to a greater extent when the victim is white,but also when the victim was another black.Aggressive behavior, dramatizing, playingaround, and so on (any category but violentbehavior) were the labels applied when theharm-doer was white, even if the victim wasa black or another white. Support was foundfor the hypothesis that the threshold for la-beling an act as violent is lower when viewinga black committing the same act. The datastatistically described in several different ways

SOCIAL PERCEPTION 597

converge on the following perceptual thresholdorder (harm-doer listed first): black-white >black-black > white-black > white-white.

If this finding is so readily available forcollege subjects, its generalizability to othersubject populations can be expected to beeven more dramatic. One may be tempted toask, in the real world where violence is a factof life, have blacks been the victims of mis-labeling or errors, in cases where there was a"reasonable doubt" (i.e., low perceptualthreshold acts)? In court testimonies, thiscould have grave consequences.

In the present experiment the race of theharm-doer and the race of the victim weresystematically varied, but all other aspects ofthe situation were constants. Subsequent ex-periments using the same basic paradigm needto explore the importance of other factors.The most obvious such factor is the nature ofthe harm inflicted. The harmful act in thepresent experiment is just one shove or push.This is a moderate degree of physical harm. Itwould be of interest to focus on the effects of(a) different types of harm and (b) varyingdegrees of harm. An example of the formertype of research is suggested by the followingquestion: Does the differential perception ofviolence as a function of race of the protag-onists apply only to physical harm, or is thesame effect produced when the harmful act isverbal (i.e., character assassination)? Thesecond type of research would involve sys-tematically varying the degree of harm in-flicted as, for example, in contrasting a singleshove or push with two or three puncheswhich cause the victim to fall to the floor. Asthe act becomes more extreme, it also be-comes more definite and there is less possibil-ity that attitudes and values can shape itsperception and evaluation. However, there issome evidence that as the extent of harmincreases, the need to somehow explain theharm also increases (Berscheid & Walster,1969). This may lead to a heightened differ-ential perception of violence as a function ofrace of the harm-doer. What this discussionintends is to point out the power of the experi-mental paradigm (bottling of prejudice orstereotypy in the laboratory).

The results of the attribution data are even

more disquieting. In accord with current lit-erature (Jones & Nisbett, 1971) it was ex-pected that the observer subjects would tendto attribute the violent behavior in all harm-doer conditions to stable personal dispositionsof the actor. When the harm-doer was black,dispositional attributions were indeed made.However, when the harm-doer was white,observer subjects preferred to see the act asunder external constraints. How can this beexplained? Jones and Nisbett (1971) suggestthat the illusion that our reactions are percep-tions is sustained in part by the apparent con-sensus accompanying most of our reactions, aconsensus that may rest as much on transmit-ted cultural norms as on the compelling fea-tures of objective "reality." This commentneeds no amplification.

It would appear that the black man is im-bued (stereotyped, categorized, etc.) withsuch salient personality properties (e.g., givento violence) that these traits tend to engulfthe field rather than be confined to theirproper position, the interpretation of whichrequires additional data about the situation.Dispositions then are treated as causal andare "packaged." Cronbach (1955) and Mischel(1968) recently spoke of these packages as animplicit personality theory, an intuition abouthow traits interact. These theories are thoughtto be relatively consistent across differentstimulus persons as well as different observers.Why, however, does the observer subject goout of his way to attribute away from stabledispositions in the white harm-doer condi-tions? These are the data that contradict andare inexplicable. However we approach thispuzzle, it remains an unpromising commen-tary.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. The nature of prejudice. Garden City,N.Y.: Doubleday, 1958.

Asch, S. E. Studies in the principles of judgmentsand attitudes: II. Determination of judgments by-groups and by ego standards. Journal of SocialPsychology, 1940, 12, 433-465.

Asch, S. E. The doctrine of suggestion, prestige, andimitation in social psychology. Psychological Re-view, 1948, 55, 250-276.

Bales, R. F. Personality and interpersonal behavior.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. Interpersonal attrac-tion. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

598 BIRT L. DUNCAN

Brown, R. Social psychology. New York: Free Press,1965.

Bruner, J. S. On perceptual readiness. PsychologicalReview, 1957, 64, 123-151.

Bruner, J. S. Social psychology and perception. InE. E. Maccoby, F. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley(Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1958.

Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. Value and need asorganizing factors in perception. Journal of Ab-normal Social Psychology, 1947, 42, 33-44.

Brunswick, E. Perception and the representative de-sign of psychological experiments. Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press, 1956.

Cronbach, L. J. Processes affecting scores on "under-standing of others" and "assumed similarity." Psy-chological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 177-193.

Heider, J. The psychology of interpersonal relations.New York: Wiley, 1958.

Jones, E., & Harris, V. The attribution of attitudes.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1967,3, 1-24.

Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. The actor and the

observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes ofbehavior. Morristown, N.J.: General LearningPress, 1971.

Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social psychol-ogy. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium onMotivation (Vol. 15). Lincoln: University of Ne-braska Press, 1967.

Kelly, G. A. The psychology of personal constructs.New York: Norton, 1955.

Merton, R. K. Social theory and social structure.New York: Free Press, 1957.

Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York:Norton, 1955.

Secord, P. F., & Backman, C. W. Social psychology.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Tajfel, H. Social and cultural factors in perception.In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook ofsocial psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,1969.

Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bern, D. J. Groupinfluence on individual risk-taking. Journal ofAbnormal Social Psychology, 1962, 65, 75-86.

(Received December 8, 1975)

Manuscripts Accepted{Continued from page 555)

Validation of Personality Traits: A Multicriteria Approach. John McGowan and JohnGormly (Department of Psychology, RC Psychology Building, Busch Campus, RutgersUniversity, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903).

The Effects of Helping a Less Competent Member of a Cooperating Interracial Group onthe Development of Interpersonal Attraction. Fletcher A. Blanchard and Stuart W.Cook (I.B.S. Building #5, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302).

A Test of the Bargaining Theory of Coalition Formation in Four-Person Groups. H. AndrewMichener (Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin53706), John A. Fleishman, and Jerry J. Vaske.

Sharing Reinforcement Contingencies with a Model: A Social-Learning Analysis of Simi-larity Effects in Imitation Research. Kay Bussey and David G. Perry (Department ofPsychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 4067).

Variables Related to Women's Somatic Preferences of the Male and Female Body. SallyBell Beck (Department of Psychology, Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana 46208),Christine Ward-Hull, and Paul M. McLear.

Outcome Dependency: Attention, Attribution, and Attraction. Ellen Berscheid (Departmentof Psychology, N3O7 Elliott Hall, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota55455), William Graziano, Thomas Monson, and Marshall Dermer.

The Bystander Response to an Assault: When a Man Attacks a Woman. R. Lance Shotland(Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsyl-vania 16802) and Margret K. Straw.

Effect of Incentives and Education on Resource Conservation Decisions in a SimulatedCommons Dilemma. Paul C. Stern (Elmira College, Box 21, Elmira, New York 14901).