The Construct of Symbolic Racism
Racism is an issue that at first glance could be considered obsolete in modern society. Yet, according to multiple researchers, this phenomenon still persists in the form of symbolic racism (Henry & Sears, 2002; McConahay, 1986). Symbolic or modern racism is differentiated from conventional racism on the basis of its implicit and less outward nature. It is described as a multidimensional system of beliefs, stereotypes, and prejudices towards people of the race that is perceived to be inferior (Henry & Sears, 2002). It features subtle verbal and non-verbal manifestations of resentment and in direct violation of basic human rights such as freedom of self-expression, free speech, professional, social, and personal development.
The construct has been a subject of scrutiny as to the themes pertaining to it. Currently, coherence in understanding has been achieved, and four major themes have been agreed upon in the scientific community. Thus, Tarman and Sears (2005) identify the following: 1) denial of the presence of discrimination; 2) support for the thesis that work-related difficulties of African-Americans are the cause of their disadvantaged state; 3) unwarranted nature of their social and political demands; 4) unfair nature of their benefits and privileges.
According to Seras and McConahay (1973), the concept is established through basic aspects such as opposition to black politicians on account of their race and features adherent to it. In addition, it encompasses a perception of black politics as a power capable of and willing to dominate over white politics. The originators of the concept applied it only to the African-American race, while other scientists engaged in researching and applying the construct of symbolic racism to other races and cultures. As such, Augoustinos, Ahrens, and Inness (1994) furthered the research in the sphere and narrowed it to the experiences of the indigenous Australian population. They conclude that both in low-prejudice and high-prejudice subjects there is still a degree of indecisiveness and conflict about the image of and attitude to native Australians. Therefore, the concept of modern racism is to be further researched and measured in relation to this group.
Measurement of the Construct
The mere statement of the presence of symbolic racism is not enough to give it credibility and a scientific basis. The construct has to be measured and based on substantial and up-to-date facts, confirming its existence, scale, and significance. Symbolic racism, as it has been described in the scientific community, has a significant impact on the psycho-social perception of ‘others.’ The concept is reported to predict improper behaviors and prejudiced attitudes towards people of other races and origins (Henry & Sears, 2002). Therefore, it is absolutely paramount to measure the concept to determine its presence, prevalence, and significance to modern people.
Since the advent of the modern racism constructs in the scientific literature, there have been numerous scales developed to measure and assess its prevalence, characteristic features, and other sides. McConahay (1986) was one of the first to create a measurement tool that would fulfill this goal. His Modern Racism Scale (MRS) was designed to measure the underlying and discrete urges of discrimination through a questionnaire of seven questions. It was criticized for measuring merely the cautiousness of people giving politically correct answers, yet the true nature of their beliefs remained unseen (Mellor, 2003). In addition, the design was believed to be old-fashioned and therefore invalid (Henry & Sears, 2002).
The updated scale was tested and published later by Henry and Sears in the Political Psychology journal in 2002. The items feature statements that cover the aforementioned four topics characterizing the symbolic racism construct (Henry & Sears, 2002). The scale consisted of eight items that measured each specific topic and were administered in several consecutive events to a total sample of 1939 people, of whom the majority were white. The new scale called Symbolic Racism 2000 (SR2K) had established reliability, validity, internal coherence, and a large sample that allowed generalizability (Henry & Sears, 2002). It was clearly differentiated from measuring the concepts of old-fashioned racism, conservatism, and other constructs.
The studies of Sears, Henry, McConahay, Tarman, and other intellectuals provide an enormous amount of theoretical and practical knowledge relevant to this research. However, the problem with the MRS, SR2K, and other scales is that they focus primarily on attitudes towards the African-American population, which limits its usability for the goals of the current study. This research is focused on assessing modern racism in relation to indigenous Australians, and the measurement scale has to be tailored specifically to assess attitudes towards this group.
The work of Augoustinos et al. (1994) provides a valuable insight into scales adjusted for this specific purpose. The authors have undertaken the task of implementing the two-questionnaire scale based on a short free-response task developed by Devine and MRS. Both tools were adapted to measure attitudes towards Australians. Specifically, the word ‘blacks’ was substituted with the word ‘aborigines’ (Augoustinos et al., 1994). The first assessment asked whether a respondent agrees with statements that either contain or do not contain racial prejudice against native Australians. In the second assessment, participants were invited to provide prompt ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses to short statements that also contained or did not contain implicit themes of discrimination (Augoustinos et al., 1994). The second part also featured open-ended questions where participants stated their personal attitudes towards this group.
The limitations of the study by Augoustinos et al. (1994) are that the scales used in the research were lacking external validity as they measured mostly young samples of psychology students who generally exhibit a higher understanding of psychological concepts including symbolic racism. The usability of MRS for the purposes of the current study is also doubted on accounts of its lack of internal validity and outdatedness.
Thus, the literature research revealed certain implications for developing a new scale for measuring symbolic racism in relation to native Australians that would be accurate and, reliable, and valid. Among the problems of the existing scales, the most significant is their outdatedness. Most of the scales are developed 40-20 years ago, and their items may not accurately reflect the current realities of the world in 2018. The acquiescence bias also persists with the MRS (Henry & Sears, 2002). SR2K addresses most of the issues of the earlier tools is still developed a considerable time ago. In addition, it is developed primarily to assess modern racism in relation to African-American natives rather than Australian ones. In light of this, the new measurement tool needs to be developed in the course of the present study. The knowledge gathered from the reviewed literature will be used to avoid the discovered issues of the previously-developed tools.
New Scale for Assessing Symbolic Racism
Since the symbolic racism concept is described through four major themes, it is critical that the scale addresses all of them. In light of this, the four factors are designed as follows: 1) work ethic and responsibility for outcomes; 2) excessive demands; 3) denial of continuing discrimination; 4) undeserved advantage. These factors correspond with the aforementioned themes and establish the factorial validity of the scale. The convergent validity is established through the correlation of this scale with SR2K where also a four-factor model was used. Above that, it is believed that there are two groups of people with different initial attitudes towards other cultures named low-prejudice and high-prejudice (Augoustinos et al., 1994). It could be hypothesized that high scores in the new four-factor tool would correlate with ‘yes’ responses of high-prejudice groups as it indicates their adherence to certain racial stereotypes. The association of guilt and negative attitudes towards indigenous Australians discovered by Pedersen, Beven, Walker, and Griffiths (2004) should correlate with high scores in the fourth factor.
The discriminant validity is established through the items that target specifically the implicit forms of racism in juxtaposition to conventional racism. Another source of discriminant validity lies in the inability of measuring symbolic racism purely in a single dimension (Henry & Sears, 2002). Therefore, it could be hypothesized that a multifactorial model of the tool will benefit the depth of assessment of the construct through the ability to measure different aspects of implicit discrimination. The tool has excellent construct validity due to the fact that both convergent and discriminant validity are established and supported with operationalized hypotheses.
References
Augoustinos, M., Ahrens, C., & Innes, J. M. (1994). Stereotypes and prejudice: The Australian experience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 125-141.
Henry, P. J., & Sears, D. O. (2002). The symbolic racism 2000 scale. Political Psychology, 23(2), 253-283.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91- 125). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pedersen, A., Beven, J., Walker, I., & Griffiths, B. (2004). Attitudes toward Indigenous Australians: The role of empathy and guilt. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(4), 233-249.
Sears, D. O., & McConahay, J. (1973). The politics of violence. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Tarman, C., & Sears, D. O. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of symbolic racism. The Journal of Politics 67(3), 731–761.