Marylee C. Taylor

Improved Conditions, Rising Expectations, and Dissatisfaction: A Test of the Past/Present Relative Deprivation Hypothesis

Core propositions of pastlpresent relative deprivation theories are tested using longitudinal measures offinancial experience, financial expectations, and satisfaction. None of the relative deprivation predictions are supported. Expectations seem not to be unrealistically dependent on previous experience. The gap between expectations and actual outcomes did not relate to satisfaction in the predicted fashion, nor did patterns of personalfinancial experience. Further research is needed, but this examination suggests that social psychological assumptions of the J-curve, rising expectations, and aspirational and decremental deprivation theories deserve critical reappraisal.

Race, Religion, and Beliefs about Racial Inequality

This article focuses on stratification beliefs and racial policy opinions among white and black Americans who differ in religious preference. First, it summarizes earlier research on white conservative Protestants and outlines characterizations of Black Protestant church congregants. It then reports patterns of stratification beliefs and racial policy opinions among blacks and whites varying in religious preference who responded to the 1996 through 2006 General Social Surveys. Comparisons across twelve race-by-religion categories did not provide persuasive evidence that white conservative Protestants are uniquely conservative in their stratification beliefs, once background characteristics are controlled, nor was the Black Protestant group distinctive. Compared to blacks, whites were less inclined to structuralist explanations of racial inequality, slightly more inclined to individualist explanations, and consistently more negative about policies and programs to aid blacks. What is more, white Christians were more racially conservative in all these ways than non-Christian whites.

THE UNCERTAIN IMPACT OF ANGLO/LATINO CONTACT ON ANGLOS’ IMMIGRATION POLICY VIEWS: Awareness of Latinos’ Problems Is the Key

This project draws on psychological and sociological social psychology to investigate immigration policy opinions among native-born non-Hispanic Whites. Using data from a suburban Chicago-area county that has seen substantial growth in the Latino immigrant population, we examine Anglos’ opinions on three dimensions of immigration policy: preferred immigration rate, resistance to immigration, and assistance for immigrants. Our central hypothesis is that liberalizing effects of Anglo/Latino interpersonal contact are conditioned on Anglos’ recognition of hardships and barriers faced by Latinos. Five of the six interaction effects we estimated were highly significant: Personal contact with Latinos does promote more positive, progressive immigration policy opinions, but only among some Anglos—those who were acquainted with immigrants who had run afoul of immigration law or believed there is substantial local discrimination against Latinos. The results are reminiscent of James Kluegel’s (1985) analysis of White Americans’ views about affirmative action: “If there isn’t a problem, you don’t need a solution.” Affirmation of local anti-Latino discrimination was the stronger moderator of contact effects and also showed main effects on immigration policy opinion stronger than the effects of interpersonal contact. Denial of anti-Latino discrimination may be a means used by Anglos to defend their group position.

Introduction of Thomas F. Pettigrew 2014 Recipient of the Cooley-Mead Award

Where scholarship on U.S. race relations is the topic, the name Thomas Pettigrew is predictably front and center. This has been true since the early days of Tom’s 58-year-long career as a social psychologist who specializes in racial prejudice and intergroup relations. Tom Pettigrew was born and raised in the American South. As a youth he witnessed racial discrimination close up. For a 1986 Psychology Today interview, Tom described a formative event that unfolded when he and his beloved African American caregiver Mildred Adams set out to the movies together to catch the new film of her favorite actor, Humphrey Bogart. The theater staff applied the ‘‘whites only’’ rule, and Mildred Adams was barred from entry. Though still a child, Tom railed against that injustice, refusing to enter himself. Such experiences in Tom’s youth engendered abhorrence of racial prejudice and discrimination that has fueled the sophisticated scholarship and energetic service of his adult years. The University of Virginia is Tom’s undergraduate alma mater. For graduate study Harvard beckoned, and Tom earned his MA and PhD in social psychology there, benefitting from close association with Gordon Allport that lasted until Allport’s death in 1967. After a one-year appointment at the University of North Carolina, Tom returned to join the faculty at Harvard, where he served for the next twenty-three years. In 1980 he was lured to the West Coast, where he spent fourteen years as a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and another twenty years and counting as a research professor. He is certainly ‘‘emeritus,’’ but the research professor title better represents the pace of his scholarly activity. One measure of Tom Pettigrew’s accomplishments is the vast number of impressive and varied publications. His early books, A Profile of the Negro American (1964) and Racially Separate or Together? (1971) were staples of race relations scholarship four decades ago. How to Think Like a Social Scientist (1996) and When Groups Meet: The Dynamics of Intergroup Contact (2011, with Linda Tropp) have been in the more recent spotlight. His publications include more than a dozen other books and monographs. Then there are articles in such outlets as American Sociological Review, The American Journal of Sociology, Social