CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Social and Intergroup PsychologyRace, History, and American SocietyRacial and Ethnic Identity Research

Traditional and Contemporary Prejudice and Urban Whites’ Support for Affirmative Action and Government Help

Williams, David R., Jackson, James S., Brown, Tony N., Torres, Myriam, Forman, Tyrone A., Brown, Kendrick·1999·Social Problems
DOI 10.2307/3097073
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Data from a probability sample of a major metropolitan area in the United States were used to examine the extent to which racial prejudice predicted variations in whites' support for both government efforts to help blacks through social and economic initiatives, in general, and through Affirmative Action programs in employment, in particular. We examined the relative contributions of traditional and contemporary racial prejudice, individual and group self-interests, and stratification beliefs to the support of race-related policies. Confirmatory Factor Analyses were used to ascertain the empirical independence of the multiple independent measures and the two policy outcomes. Similar to some previous studies, we found that all three classes of variables predict whites' support of racial policies but racial prejudice is the most important. Moreover, the contemporary forms of prejudice are most consequential in predicting levels of support for social policies designed to reduce racial inequality. Finally, controlling for racial prejudice revealed that whites who adhere to basic American values of equal opportunity, hold beliefs that some groups are dominant over others, and believe in the inherent superiority whites, actually favor Affirmative Action and tend to be supportive of government help for blacks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3097073

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research in the U.S. has found that the same measure of the absence of positive emotions for blacks was the strongest predictor of whites' opposition to affirmative action in employment and to an active role of the government in reducing racial inequalities.

    “Similarly, research in the U.S. has found that the same measure of the absence of positive emotions for blacks was the strongest predictor of whites’ opposition to affirmative action in employment and to an active role of the government in reducing racial inequalities [115].”

    From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [115]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Williams, D. R., Jackson, J. S., Brown, T. N., Torres, M., Forman, T. A., & Brown, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Macalester College (US)
Corresponding author
Williams, David R.
ORCID
Venue
Social Problems
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1999-11
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
503-527
ISSN
  • 0037-7791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-8533
DOI
10.2307/3097073
OpenAlex
W1971918498
Cited by
58
References
69
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
20.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Social Problems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Race, History, and American Society
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
Keywords
racial prejudice, affirmative action, white attitudes, social inequality, self-interest, racial inequality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review