Rosalind M. Chow

Deny, Distance, or Dismantle? How White Americans Manage a Privileged Identity

Social scientists have traditionally argued that whiteness—the attribute of being recognized and treated as a White person in society—is powerful because it is invisible. On this view, members of the racially dominant group have the unique luxury of rarely noticing their race or the privileges it confers. This article challenges this “invisibility thesis,” arguing that Whites frequently regard themselves as racial actors. We further argue that whiteness defines a problematic social identity that confronts Whites with 2 psychological threats: the possibility that their accomplishments in life were not fully earned (meritocratic threat) and the association with a group that benefits from unfair social advantages (group-image threat). We theorize that Whites manage their racial identity to dispel these threats. According to our deny, distance, or dismantle (3D) model of White identity management, dominant-group members have three strategies at their disposal: deny the existence of privilege, distance their own self-concepts from the White category, or strive to dismantle systems of privilege. Whereas denial and distancing promote insensitivity and inaction with respect to racial inequality, dismantling reduces threat by relinquishing privileges. We suggest that interventions aimed at reducing inequality should attempt to leverage dismantling as a strategy of White identity management.

Appeasement Whites’ Strategic Support for Affirmative Action

This article explores the possibility that dominant-group members will attempt to appease subordinate groups to protect the hierarchy. In four studies, we find that (a) prohierarchy Whites perceive more intergroup threat when they believe ethnic minorities hold Whites in low regard, (b) prohierarchy Whites respond to ethnic minorities’ low regard for Whites by increasing their support for redistributive policies (e.g., affirmative action), (c) the increase in support only occurs when prohierarchy Whites perceive the hierarchy to be unstable, and (d) prohierarchy Whites perceive the hierarchy to be more stable if they believe Whites support redistributive policies. These results suggest that prohierarchy dominant-group members’ support for redistributive policies can stem from a concern about maintaining the hierarchical status quo, and provides evidence that support for redistributive policies can be a hierarchy-enhancing strategy.

The Effect of Inequality Frames on Support for Redistributive Tax Policies

Over the past 30 years, income inequality has increased markedly in the United States (Mishel, Bernstein, & Boushey, 2003). Despite widespread agreement that current levels of income inequality are troubling, many Americans—particularly conservatives—oppose proposals designed to reduce the magnitude of inequality (Bartels, 2005, 2008; Jost, Blount, Pfeffer, & Hunydady, 2003; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). Regardless, it is difficult to imagine a remedy for income inequality that does not involve a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, like the proposed Buffett Rule, which would increase taxes on those making more than

Taking Race Off the Table Agenda Setting and Support for Color-Blind Public Policy

1 million a year. What might change conservatives’ consistent opposition to redistributive tax policies? The research we report here provides evidence that the way in which income inequality is described affects support for redistributive tax policies by influencing how individuals explain income inequality. Income inequality can be described in two ways: as the rich making more than the poor, or as the poor making less than the rich. Although the two descriptions convey identical information, previous research has suggested that the way in which inequalities are framed influences individuals’ perceptions of what other people ought to have (Lowery, Chow, & Randall-Crosby, 2009). Framing inequality as the rich making more than the poor might not only highlight how wealthy the rich are and increase individuals’ willingness to take this wealth away from them (Lowery, Chow, Knowles, & Unzueta, 2012), but also increase uncertainty about whether the wealthy are rich because of internal attributes (e.g., they may be more hardworking than poor people) or because of external advantages (e.g., they may have more inherited wealth than poor people do; Lowery & Wout, 2010). Such uncertainty should, in turn, increase willingness to take wealth away from the rich. This effect should be particularly evident among people who tend to believe that the rich deserve their wealth: conservatives (Feather, 1984). In sum, we predicted that the oft-found negative relationship between conservatism and support for redistributive tax policies would differ depending on how inequality was framed, and that these differences would be driven by differences in individuals’ explanations for poverty and wealth. Method

Chapter 7 To be fair or to be dominant: The effect of inequality frames on dominant group members’ responses to inequity

Whites are theorized to support color-blind policies as an act of racial agenda setting—an attempt to defend the existing hierarchy by excluding race from public and institutional discourse. The present analysis leverages work distinguishing between two forms of social dominance orientation (SDO): passive opposition to equality (SDO-E) and active desire for dominance (SDO-D). We hypothesized that agenda setting, as a subtle hierarchy-maintenance strategy, would be uniquely tied to high levels of SDO-E. When made to believe that the hierarchy was under threat, Whites high in SDO-E increased their endorsement of color-blind policy (Study 1), particularly when the racial hierarchy was framed as ingroup advantage (Study 2), and became less willing to include race as a topic in a hypothetical presidential debate (Study 3). Across studies, Whites high in SDO-D showed no affinity for agenda setting as a hierarchy-maintenance strategy.

On the malleability of ideology: motivated construals of color blindness.

Purpose – All modern societies are marked by unequal relationships between dominant and subordinate groups. Given that dominant group members often have the resources to determine if and how inequities might be dealt with, it is important to know when and how dominant group members will respond to inequity. Approach – In this chapter, we present a new framework for how individuals experience inequality: the inequality-framing model. According to the model, individuals distinguish between inequities of advantage and inequities of disadvantage, which is predicted to lead to different experiences of inequity. We then review prior literature that indicates that perceptions of ingroup advantage and outgroup disadvantage can influence when and how dominant group members will respond to inequity. We specifically investigate hierarchy-attenuating responses to inequity, such as support for affirmative action policies, and hierarchy-enhancing responses, such as denial of inequity, disidentification from the group, the motivated construal of inequity, and the motivated use of colorblind ideology. Research and practical implications – The model suggests that researchers and practitioners alike would do well to pay attention not only to the magnitude of inequity, but also to the way in which it is described. Importantly, dominant group members are more likely to have the power over how inequalities are discussed, which has ramifications for their experience of and willingness to remedy inequity. Originality – This chapter provides an overview of research indicating that how inequity is described – advantage or disadvantage – can have implications for how dominant group members experience and respond to inequity.