Copyright

by

John Vincent Kucsera, Jr.

2009
 THE DISSERTATION COMMITTEE FOR JOHN VINCENT KUCSERA, JR.
CERTIFIES THAT THIS IS THE APPROVED VERSION OF THE FOLLOWING
DISSERTATION:

RACIAL MINDFULNESS: EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF

MINDFULNESS ON RACIAL BIASES

Committee:

Richard Valencia, Supervisor

Kristin Neff

Richard Reddick

Diane Schallert

Tiffany Whittaker
RACIAL MINDFULNESS: EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF
MINDFULNESS ON RACIAL BIASES

by

JOHN VINCENT KUCSERA, JR., B.A., M.A.

DISSERTATION
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

AUGUST 2009
 Dedication

For my mother.
 RACIAL MINDFULNESS: EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF
MINDFULNESS ON RACIAL BIASES

Publication No._____________

John Vincent Kucsera, Jr., Ph.D.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2009

Supervisor: Richard Valencia

We disbelieve it; we deny it; we even disguise it; but racial prejudice continues to

permeate the United States. As a result, researchers labor to determine variables that can

reduce these attitudes and consequently, improve social behavior. Three confirmed

conditions that can reduce racial attitudes include: (a) awareness to racial biases, (b)

motivation for bias reduction, and (c) cognitive strategies for prejudice regulation.

However, racial awareness are usually nonexistent for White Americans, and when

introduced, racial awareness can cause negative outcomes, such as guilt or denial, that

can decrease motivation to reduce one’s prejudice levels. The construct and practices of

mindfulness may provide a solution to these limitations and help reduce racial prejudice

levels for White individuals.

v
 The present dissertation explored the initial steps of this racial mindfulness

program of research by first investigating the influence of White participants’ degree of

mindfulness on their racial prejudice levels using structural equation modeling. Because

mindfulness can increase awareness to stimuli, mindfulness could meet the first prejudice

reduction condition (i.e., raise awareness to racial stimuli), and therefore, reduce racial

prejudice levels directly. In addition, mindfulness has been found to increase similar

variables that influences motivation to reduce racial prejudice levels, such as empathy

and interconnectedness. Therefore, White participants’ degree of mindfulness could

decrease their racial prejudice levels indirectly as well. Results from this study indicated

that mindfulness did not reduce racial prejudice levels directly or indirectly, although

there were some methodology limitations that could have obscured the results.

The next step investigated if White participants’ degree of mindfulness can

attenuate the negative affects that can arise when Whites first become aware of racial

biases, as mindfulness has been found to mitigate ego defensiveness and negative

emotions when one’s self-esteem is threatened. Written reactions to a White privilege

article from White participants identified as holding a high and low degree of general

mindfulness were subject to content analysis. The results indicated that participants with

a high degree of mindfulness exhibited greater awareness and acceptance to White

privilege and less negative reactions. The findings support the need to create and explore

a racial mindfulness intervention.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

Delimitations .................................................................................................................. 7

Dissertation Overview.................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2: The Problem .................................................................................................... 10

Racial Inequalities ........................................................................................................ 10

Net Income and Net Worth ..................................................................................... 10

Home Equity and Ownership .................................................................................. 12

Academic Success and Schooling ........................................................................... 13

Racial Discrimination .................................................................................................. 15

Past Discrimination ................................................................................................. 15

Current Discrimination ............................................................................................ 18

Racial Prejudice ........................................................................................................... 22

Origins of Racial Prejudice ..................................................................................... 22

Forms and Measurement of Racial Prejudice ......................................................... 27

Chapter Summary......................................................................................................... 39

Chapter 3: The Solution .................................................................................................... 40

Conditions for Racial Prejudice Reduction .................................................................. 40

Racial Consciousness .............................................................................................. 40

Motivation Variables ............................................................................................... 42

vii
 Cognitive Regulatory Strategies.............................................................................. 45

Limitations to Racial Prejudice Reduction .................................................................. 46

Low Racial Consciousness ...................................................................................... 47

Negative Motivational Outcomes............................................................................ 48

Difficulty with Developing and Practicing Cognitive Regulatory Strategies ......... 50

Mindfulness .................................................................................................................. 51

Paths and Benefits ................................................................................................... 52

Racial Mindfulness ...................................................................................................... 58

Advocates for Racial Mindfulness .......................................................................... 59

Mindfulness and Prejudice Studies ......................................................................... 60

Theoretical Exploration of Racial Mindfulness ...................................................... 62

Chapter Summary......................................................................................................... 67

Chapter 4: Research Design .............................................................................................. 68

Chapter 5: Study A............................................................................................................ 70

Method ......................................................................................................................... 70

Participants .............................................................................................................. 70

Procedure ................................................................................................................. 71

Measures.................................................................................................................. 73

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 80

Results .......................................................................................................................... 87

Data Assumptions and Internal Consistency ........................................................... 87

Model Development and Model Comparison ......................................................... 90

viii
 Path Coefficients and Effects .................................................................................. 97

Discussion .................................................................................................................. 101

Chapter 6: Study B .......................................................................................................... 106

Method ....................................................................................................................... 106

Participants ............................................................................................................ 106

Procedure ............................................................................................................... 107

Measures................................................................................................................ 108

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 109

Results ........................................................................................................................ 113

White Privilege Scores .......................................................................................... 113

Themes and Subthemes of the Content Analysis .................................................. 114

Low and High Mindfulness Participants ............................................................... 127

Discussion .................................................................................................................. 130

Chapter 7: General Discussion........................................................................................ 132

Overview .................................................................................................................... 132

Implications and Directions for Future Research....................................................... 136

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 139

Appendix A: Previous Racial Outgroup Contact Scale .................................................. 140

Appendix B: Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) ....................................... 141

Appendix C: Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) ......................................................... 143

Appendix D: Pilot Study for the Social Re(De)categorization Scale ............................. 145

Appendix E: Social Re(De)categorization Scale ............................................................ 148

ix
Appendix F: Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale (SR2K) ....................................................... 149

Appendix G: White Privilege Scale (WPS) .................................................................... 150

Appendix H: White Privilege Article ............................................................................. 151

References ....................................................................................................................... 153

Vita.................................................................................................................................. 175

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Subtle Conscious Racial Prejudice Theories ...................................................... 30

Table 2: Administration Order of Measures ..................................................................... 72

Table 3: Block Sequences of the IAT ............................................................................... 78

Table 4: Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Alphas among Total Scales and

Subscales ........................................................................................................................... 89

Table 5: Exploratory Factor Analysis Results and Item-to-Construct Parceling of

Unidimensional Measures ................................................................................................. 90

Table 6: Exploratory Factor Analysis Results and Item-to-Construct Parceling of the

Mindfulness Measure ........................................................................................................ 92

Table 7: Exploratory Factor Analysis Results and Item-to-Construct Parceling of the

Empathy Measure ............................................................................................................. 93

Table 8: Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Measured Variables in the

Initial Measurement Model ............................................................................................... 94

Table 9: Model Fit Indices and Comparisons for Competing Measurement Models ....... 95

Table 10: Model Fit Indices and Comparisons for Competing Structural Models ........... 97

Table 11: Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients for the Final Structural

Equation Model ................................................................................................................. 98

Table 12: Standardized Effects for the Final Structural Equation Model ......................... 99

Table 13: Themes and Subthemes of the Content Analysis ........................................... 115

Table 14: Themes and Subthemes by Participants in the Low Mindfulness Group ....... 128

Table 15: Themes and Subthemes by Participants in the High Mindfulness Group ...... 129

xi
Table 16: Rotated Pattern and Structure Matrices for Responses to the Social

Re(De)Categorization Scale............................................................................................ 146

xii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Net Income and Net Worth of White and Black Families ................................ 12

Figure 2: Initial Measurement Model ............................................................................... 81

Figure 3: Initial Structural Model ..................................................................................... 84

xiii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Within the last 40 years, great strides have been made in the United States (U.S.)

in relation to racial equality. Jim Crow is dead. Racial discrimination is illegal.

Institutional barriers for advancement of people of color are departing. The U.S. is

witnessing its first President of color. In every social sector, America appears closer to

having an egalitarian society where all races have an equal opportunity to achieve the

American Dream: an education, a home, a profitable career – even the presidency.

Yet, despite our progress, inequalities continue to exist between Whites and

people of color. Persisting racial differences are found in social domains of education

(Frankenberg, Lee, & Orfield, 2003), housing, employment (Quillian, 2006), health care

(Nazroo, 2003), and income (Isaacs, 2007). Researchers have found that a substantial

portion of these inequalities can be explained by past and present racial discrimination

(i.e., behavior), which can be explained by existing but hidden racial prejudice (i.e.,

attitudes; Hanson & Hanson, 2006, Quillian, 2006).

As a result, researchers continue to explore and determine variables that can

reduce racial prejudice and consequently, improve social behavior. Researchers (e.g.,

Devine, 2001; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999) indicate three conditions are necessary to

reduce racial attitudes. The first condition is an individual must be aware of and attentive

to racial stimuli, such as hidden prejudice and existing racial discrimination. The second

condition is the individual must be motivated to reduce or regulate such biases. This

desire can result from the drive to reduce negative feelings that occur when an individual

first becomes conscious of racial biases and experiences dissonance between these biases

1
and their egalitarian values or social norms (i.e., cognitive dissonance). In addition,

awareness of similarities between racial ingroups and outgroups (i.e., social

recategorization), attention to differentiation of racial group members (i.e., social

decategorization), and empathy are other variables that prior research has found to

motivate individuals to reduce racial prejudice levels. Finally, the third condition

necessary for prejudice reduction is an individual, once aware and motivated, must have

the cognitive resources to continue consciousness and regulation of racial biases.

For White Americans, however, these three reduction conditions may be a

formidable task. First, most White Americans are unaware of hidden racial prejudice,

existing discrimination, and inequalities. When (made) aware of inequalities, most

Whites rationalize that these differences stem from a choice or lack of motivation from

marginalized racial groups (therefore consistent with a nondiscriminatory America),

rather than racial prejudice or discrimination (Henkel, Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2006).

Further, when becoming aware of racial prejudice or discrimination, the negative feelings

of guilt and compunction that Whites may experience can cause many to deny or debunk

further that such biases exist (Quillian, 2006). For example, negative emotions arising

from cognitive dissonance have been found to prevent social action and prejudice

reduction (Pedersen, Walker, & Wise, 2005), as well as even increase Whites’ racial

prejudice levels (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Schiffhauer, 2007). Finally, even when White

Americans are (made) aware of racial biases and positively overcome such initial

negative emotions, the reduction in racial prejudice and discrimination are difficult to

maintain. Therefore, reduction outcomes can be short-lived due to the degree of

2
cognitive resources required to continue consciousness and regulation of racial biases

(Devine, 1989).

These limitations (i.e., Whites are often unaware of racial biases, negative

outcomes can arise from Whites’ awareness to racial biases, and racial prejudice

reduction can be short-lived) combined with the social problem that inequalities and

racial biases continue to exist, create an arduous issue for researchers and educators to

tackle. Generally, scholars direct most of their efforts in exploring variables and

interventions that can increase Whites’ awareness and attention to racial stimuli, with the

hope that such consciousness creates cognitive dissonance, recategorization or

decategorization of racial group membership, or empathy, and therefore, result in a

reduction of biases. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, prejudice reduction does not

always occur, and when it does, reduction may not last long. A variable that might

influence Whites’ attention and awareness to racial biases; increase their level of

acceptance to these biases (e.g., less ego-defensiveness resulting from cognitive

dissonance); influence motivational variables of social recategorization, social

decategorization, and empathy; and serve as a cognitive resource for continual

consciousness and regulation of racial biases is the construct of mindfulness.

Mindfulness is defined as the attentiveness and awareness of internal and external

stimuli with open receptivity or acceptance (Brown & Ryan, 2003). This mode of

processing varies naturally across individuals, coming easier to some than others. But like

most cognitive states, mindfulness may be enhanced by mental exercises, ancient and

new.

3
 Although a rather simple concept, the benefits of mindfulness are considerable.

An increase in mindfulness has been found to increase connectedness with others and

empathy (Miller, 1995; Shapiro, Brown, & Biegel, 2007; Shapiro, Schwartz, & Bonner,

1998), and decrease activation of subconscious ego defense mechanisms (Emavardhana

& Tori, 1997). A rise in mindfulness has also been found to lead to a greater perceptivity

and sensitivity to one’s environment, more openness to new information, creation of new

cognitive categories, and enhanced awareness to multiple perspectives (Langer 1989,

1997). Moreover, mindfulness has been found positively related to nonjudgment and self-

compassion levels (Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, Toney, 2006).

In relation to biases, mindfulness is suggested and found to reduce prejudgment

and preconception. Thich Nhat Hanh (1975), a notable Vietnamese Zen master, suggests

that mindfulness could affect an individual’s perception of reality, indirectly freeing one

from prejudice and stereotypes. Empirically, Langer, Bashner, and Chanowitz (1985)

supported Hanh’s assertion and found that teaching children mindfulness exercises

reduced their erroneous and indiscriminate prejudice towards individuals with physical

disabilities. In addition, Lillis and Hayes (2007) found that a racial prejudice session with

mindfulness exercises significantly increased participants’ intention of positive action,

awareness, acknowledgement, thought control, diffusion, acceptance, and flexibility

towards racial biases from pre to post and in comparison to a prejudice awareness session

without such mindfulness exercises.

4
 Therefore, mindfulness may reduce one’s levels of racial prejudice indirectly

by increasing levels of connectedness to others (i.e., social recategorization and

decategorization) and empathy, and directly by increasing attention, awareness, and,

more importantly, acceptance to racial biases. To date, only one published study has

investigated mindfulness with racial prejudice (i.e., Lillis & Hayes, 2007), while a

handful of scholars propose this plausible connection (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000; Orr,

2002; Riskin, 2004; Vacarr, 2003). In this dissertation, I explain and explore how White

students’ degree of mindfulness can influence their degree of racial prejudice directly and

indirectly through mediating variables of social recategorization and decategorization of

racial group membership, and empathy. I also discuss and investigate how White

students’ mindfulness can decrease the negative outcomes that can arise from cognitive

dissonance and increase their acceptance towards racial biases, such as with the construct

of White privilege.

This study is therefore guided by the following research questions:

1. Does mindfulness influence White students’ racial prejudice towards Blacks:

a. directly by increasing awareness and attention to racial biases?

b. indirectly through mediating variables of social recategorization and

decategorization of racial group membership, and empathy?

2. When increasing White students’ awareness of and attention to racial biases:

a. does mindfulness attenuate the negative effects that can arise from

cognitive dissonance?

5
 b. does mindfulness influence acceptance towards the racial bias of

White privilege?

These research questions are answered using a mixed-method research design.

The first research question is empirically investigated by gathering White undergraduate

students’ degrees of previous racial outgroup contact, mindfulness, racial prejudice,

social recategorization and decategorization of racial group membership, and empathy.

Structural equation modeling is then used to explore the structural model that White

students’ mindfulness can influence their racial prejudice directly and indirectly through

mediating variables of social recategorization and decategorization, and empathy, while

controlling for previous racial outgroup contact. It is hypothesized that participants with a

higher degree of mindfulness exhibit greater social recategorization and decategorization,

greater empathy, and less racial prejudice.

The second research question is qualitatively explored in a second study by

performing content analyses on White participants’ written reactions to an article by

Peggy McIntosh (1995) that describes 47 privileged circumstances she experienced as a

White person. From the study’s theoretical framework, it is expected that participants

with a higher degree of mindfulness exhibit greater acceptance to White privilege and

less negative outcomes (e.g., denial) resulting from cognitive dissonance.

The ultimate purpose of this dissertation is to begin a program of research on how

to address the limitations that Whites often encounter in racial interventions and

educational programs. A racial mindfulness intervention/program (e.g., mindfulness

practices incorporated before, during, and after racial training) may serve as a solution.

6
However, explorative research is first needed. The studies within this dissertation serve as

initial steps for such research by exploring the effects of participants’ degree of general

mindfulness on their racial prejudice levels, and evaluating White participants’ reactions

in relation to degree of general mindfulness from a brief, racial intervention simulation.

The results will help determine the value of creating such a racial mindfulness

intervention/program in the future.

Delimitations

In general within this dissertation, the term race refers to populations that humans

have socially constructed for categorization purposes. With 94% physical variation lying

within and 6% genetic variation existing between so-called racial groups, the belief that

race refers to different human races of populations derived from genetic, ancestral, or

physiological differences has been unsupported (American Anthropological Association,

1998). I have also deliberately chosen to focus on the current oppression experienced by

people of color, although other marginalized populations in America could have been

selected such as, but not limited to, women, non-Christians, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual

Transgender and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) community, the young and the old, and

people with disabilities. Discrimination and prejudice based on the social construct of

race was chosen for three main reasons. First, the long history of racial discrimination

and prejudice has created a strong research base to build upon, such as supported

theoretical frameworks, findings from previous racial interventions, and psychometrically

sound instruments. Additional motivation resulted from the current publicity and

immediacy of race that has been sparked by the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Finally,

7
and on a personal note, identifying as a White person with family members that I identify

as people of color, strikes a personal interest in such an exploration.

In particular within this dissertation, I am investigating White individuals’

awareness, attention, and acceptance of racial biases towards Blacks. The choice of

Whites stems from their position as an advantaged racial group, holding power, status,

and privilege that can better serve a greater good by influencing social change. In

addition, scholars continue to struggle with how to tackle White privilege and prejudice

in America (Manglitz, Johnson-Bailey, & Cervero, 2005) and mindfulness may serve as

an educational program for these concerns in the future. In relation to marginalized racial

groups, a focus has been placed on Whites’ prejudiced attitudes towards Blacks because

of the extensive history of discrimination between and the established research based

from these two groups.

Dissertation Overview

The subsequent chapters of this dissertation consist of the following. Chapter 2

begins with a brief overview of racial inequalities, followed by a detailed analysis of

discrimination and racial prejudice research. Chapter 3 provides a discussion of current

racial prejudice reduction models, ensued by model limitations. Next, a discussion of

mindfulness is provided with a conclusion of how it may serve as a solution to limitations

of current racial prejudice models. Chapter 4 presents a research design overview

consisting of the two studies explored in this dissertation. Chapters 5 and 6 present the

details of these studies, respectively, from methodology to discussion. Finally, chapter 7

concludes with a general discussion of findings in addition to implications and avenues

8
for future research.

9
 CHAPTER 2: THE PROBLEM

In a time of perfect calm, amid willing neighbors and streaming wealth,

the social uplifting of 4,000,000 slaves to an assured and self-sustaining place in

the body politic and economic would have been a herculean task; but when to the

inherent difficulties of so delicate and nice a social operation were added the spite

and hate of conflict…when suspicion and cruelty were rife…the work of any

instrument of social regeneration was in large part foredoomed to failure.

(Du Bois, 1901, pp. 359-360)

Racial Inequalities

If the prominent intellectual leader and political activist W.E.B. Du Bois was

alive today, I believe he would applaud the social uplifting of Blacks and other

marginalized groups in America over the last 40 years. However, I also think his

celebration would be cut short, as these racial groups, as a whole, have yet to reach an

assured and self-sustaining position in comparison to White Americans. Racial

inequalities between White and marginalized racial groups continue to exist in almost

every social sector. Examples of racial inequalities can be observed in domains of net

income and worth, home equity and ownership, and academic success and schooling.

Net Income and Net Worth

In terms of economic differences, White families continue to earn more income

and have more net worth than Black families. The median net income in 2001 of White

families was roughly $55,000 but only $34,000 for Black families (see Figure 1; Kaplan

& Valls, 2007). This difference has been found apparent for White compared to Black or

10
Latino males, even after controlling for education attainment, employment sector, human

capital, and institutional differences (Sidanious & Veniegas, 2000). Many studies have

also indicated that Whites have greater intergenerational and intragenerational transfer

(i.e., economic mobility) than marginalized racial groups (Corcoran 1995; Hertz 2005,

2006; Isaacs 2007; Kearney, 2006; McBrier & Wilson, 2004). Economic mobility refers

to the change in one’s economic situation over one’s lifetime (intragenerational) or from

one generation to another (intergenerational). Issacs (2007) investigated economic

mobility through a longitudinal study between Black and White families and found that

White children live in families with much higher income, are more likely to surpass

parental income, and more likely to move up the economic ladder than Black children; in

fact, Black children were more likely to slide down the economic ladder in comparison to

their parents.

Racial inequalities in net worth are even larger than differences in net income. As

presented in Figure 1 above, White families in 2004 had a median of $118,300 and an

average of $534,000 net worth, whereas Black families had a median of only $11,800 and

an average of $101,400 (Wolff, 2007, as cited in Rivera, Cotto-Escalera, Anisha, Huezo,

& Muhammad, 2008).

11
Figure 1. Net income and net worth comparisons of White and Black families.

Note: Net income figures from “Housing discrimination as a basis for Black reparations,” by J. Kaplan and
A.Valls, 2007, Public Affairs Quarterly, 21, p. 258. Net worth figures from Wolff, 2007, as cited from
“Foreclosed: State of the dream 2008,” by A. Rivera, B. Cotto-Escalera, D. Anisha, J. Huezo, and D.
Muhammad, 2008, Boston, MA: United for a Fair Economy. p. 30.

Home Equity and Ownership

The consideration of home equity within net worth figures offers an explanation

for the large difference in net worth between White and marginalized racial groups. Black

and Latino families, on average, are far less likely to own a home than White families,

and if they do own, the home is valued less and appreciates at a lower rate than the

average home owned by a White family (Flippen 2004). The racial difference in home

equity, and as a result, net worth, is also predicted to grow larger within the next few

years due to the recent crash of the subprime (i.e., high interest) housing loan market.

According to Rivera et al. (2008), people of color were one of the best candidates for

these loans and are three times more likely to have subprime mortgage loans than Whites.
12
This finding suggests that Black and Latino families have and will continue to

disproportionately suffer from a greater loss of accumulated household wealth, more

foreclosures, and more spillover effects (e.g., crime, devaluation of neighborhoods) than

White families.

Academic Success and Schooling

White Americans also tend to enjoy greater academic success and access to

quality education than Blacks and Latinos (Sidanious, & Veniegas, 2000). Data from the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicated that graduating Black

and Latino students have math and reading skills similar to those of White middle-school

students (Education Trust, 2003a, 2003b). In addition, close to 50% of Black students and

nearly 40% of Latino students attend high schools in which graduation is not the norm

(Balfanz & Legters, 2004). These disparities can be explained by the differences in

educational quality that is available for Whites and people of color.

Racial differences in educational quality are evident through the lack of racial

integration in schools and the resulting quality of schools attended by students of color.

According to the Civil Rights Project, the proportion of Black students in majority-White

schools has decreased to a level lower than 1968, resulting in an emergence of virtually

all minority campuses, called apartheid schools where “…enormous poverty, limited

resources, and social and health problems of many types are concentrated” (Frankenberg

et al., 2003, p. 5).

13
 These apartheid schools or districts have been found to contain lower teacher

quality (Peske & Haycock, 2006) and retention (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, &

Wyckoff, 2007); less access to innovative or challenging curricula (Barth, 2003); less

facility and capital improvements (Filardo, Vincent, Sung, & Stein, 2006); and receive

substantially less state and local money per student in comparison to majority White

schools and districts (Education Trust, 2003a). The consequence of these separate and

unequal schools on marginalized individuals and community was the foundation for

Brown vs. Board of Education (1954). Now, 55 years later, these negative effects may

still exist, as Jonathon Kozol (1991), a nonfiction writer and activist, highlighted:

Children [of color], of course, don't understand at first that they are being cheated.

They come to school with a degree of faith and optimism, and they often seem to

thrive during the first few years. It is sometimes not until the third grade that their

teachers start to see the warning signs of failure. (p. 57)

In short, racial inequalities between Whites and people of color exist in America

today. But what factors are influencing these inequalities? In the words of Du Bois

(1901), inequalities are attributed to the herculean task of socially uplifting once

considered lesser humans to an assured and self-sustaining position that is combined with

current unwilling neighbors, spite and hate, and suspicion and cruelty. That is, racial

inequalities are attributed to past and current effects of racial discrimination and

prejudice. Over a hundred years later, and despite forty years of improvement, research

findings may continue to support Du Bois’s claim.

14
 Before we move to these findings, it is important to note that most White

Americans refute that racial discrimination and prejudice are attributing to racial

inequalities between Whites and people of color. Instead national surveys suggest that

most Whites attribute a lack of meritocracy or motivation of members of marginalized

racial groups as the main factor influencing their current inequalities (e.g., “If they

[people of color] only worked harder;” Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, & Krysan, 1997). Later in

this dissertation, however, we will soon see that this claim is itself a racial prejudiced

belief.

Racial Discrimination

I argue in this section that past and modern racial discrimination substantially

influences the racial inequalities existing today between Whites and people of color.

Racial discrimination is defined here as the differential treatment on the basis of race or

inadequately justified factors other than race that disadvantages a racial group (Blank,

Dabady, & Citro, 2004). This section presents only a sample of illustrations to show how

discriminatory behavior can affect racial inequalities today.

Past Discrimination

The U.S. clearly has had a troubled history of racial discrimination – if this term

can even be used to reference the inhumane treatment many marginalized racial groups

experienced. By the nineteenth century, the belief in Manifest Destiny1 and social

1
A term originating in the 19th century to justify the United States's westward expansion. Manifest Destiny
implied that it was divine destiny to spread democracy by colonizing land inhabited by indigenous people
in North America and expanding the United States into Mexican territory.

15
Darwinism (as well as supporting but falsified scientific evidence – see Gould, 1996),

allowed the White race to justify the systematic dislocation, segregation, annihilation, or

impoverishment of millions of marginalized races, such as Native Americans (Wilson,

1998), African Americans (Franklin & Moss, 2000), and Mexican Americans (Acuña,

2007).

By the twentieth century, a variety of people, events, experiences, and struggles

led to a cognitive shift of Americans’ dominant beliefs towards racial superiority and

justification for discrimination. Ironically, one person we could attribute for this

transformation is Adolf Hitler. The onset of World War II and Hitler’s “…reliance on

nature-based schemas of racial superiority and inferiority prompted Americans to view

those schemas as illegitimate covers for hate-based injustice – a theme that was

reinforced by the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s” (Hanson & Hanson,

2006, p. 442). To illustrate, how could White Americans at the time explain the

discriminatory treatment happening on their own soil while concurrently shun the

injustice occurring halfway across the world? To deal with this contradiction, Americans

began to distance themselves from notions of racial superiority and outright forms of

discrimination. Yet, turning off this behavior was not as simple as turning off a switch.

Discrimination continued, just not as obvious. It became institutionalized (Bonilla-Silva,

2001).

Examples of subtle or institutional discrimination are evident throughout our

American history. One classic illustration was the discrimination practices within housing

loan programs created around the New Deal era, such as the Federal Housing Authority

16
(FHA loans) and the Veteran Administration (VA loans). These loan programs greatly

influenced decades of rapid home equity growth for Whites, leading to a significant

source of wealth accumulation (Kaplan & Valls, 2007). However, these programs

substantially discriminated against people of color. More than 98% of the $120 billion in

home loans issued between 1934 and 1962 went to White homebuyers (California

Newsreel, 2003) due to a variety of subtle racial discrimination practices within the FHA

and VA loan systems, such as indicating Black or mixed neighborhoods were uninsurable

and promoting the use of racial covenants (Jackson 1985; Kaplan & Valls, 2007;

Katznelson 2005).

Housing discrimination from loan institutions or even realtors (e.g., steering;

Charles, 2003), restricted most people of color to live in urban cities, while the majority

of Whites moved to suburban areas. The effects of this move (often referenced as White

flight) influenced many urban businesses to transfer to suburbia as well, which greatly

reduced employment prospects for people of color. In addition, White flight helped

establish the Federal Highway Act that connected suburbs to cities, while at the same

time, destroyed and further depreciated predominantly minority, low-income housing

(Kaplan & Valls, 2007). In any area with poverty and limited employment, other social

ills have been known to follow, such as crime and demoralization – both of which further

perpetuated the rippling effect of racial discrimination for people of color (Wilson, 1996).

As a result, this residential segregation has been referred to as the linchpin of racial

inequalities; as Taylor (2000) described, “segregated… neighborhoods, themselves the

products of discrimination, are likely to produce other forms of discrimination:

17
underfunded, segregated schools…inferior public services, businesses, and recreational

facilities…(and) concentrations of poverty” (p. 72).

Past racial discrimination not only blatantly oppressed people of color but also

subtly denied them access to opportunities for wealth accumulation. Whites, on the other

hand, were silently privileged with such opportunities of higher wages, access to home

and business loans, higher quality schools, access to and tuition for college, closer

employment opportunities or the ability to purchase a car to reach employment, and many

other advantages, just from being White (Shapiro, 2005). In short, “American laws,

policies, practices, customs, and expectations quietly and situationally combined in the

last century to maintain, and even expand, the longstanding gap between Whites and

[people of color]” (Kaplan & Valls, 2007, p. 450).

Current Discrimination

Although past discrimination from inhumane to subtle treatment can be argued to

influence racial inequalities today, current subtle discrimination contributes to these

differences as well. Measurement of current discrimination, however, is extremely

challenging, as well as controversial, raising some difficult questions for researchers.

How can one measure such practices in this egalitarian era when discrimination is illegal

and often hidden or denied? How can discrimination be disentangled from other

differences across racial groups, arising from culture or past discrimination practices,

such as family size and stability, parenting style, education quality and importance,

stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995), motivation, or career opportunities?

18
 Researchers measuring current discrimination use a variety of approaches to

address the following counterfactual: Would the observed outcome for an individual or

group be different had the individual or group been of a different race? Although a

multimethod approach is recommended, audit studies provide the best singular approach

to addressing this counterfactual, inferring that an adverse outcome is likely the result of

racial discrimination (Blank et al., 2004). Generally, a (racial) field audit study consists

of quasi-experimental methodology that explores the difference in a situational outcome

(e.g., applying for a job) from paired testers with similar and matched characteristics

known to influence the outcome variable, such as same educational experience, but who

differ on a variable of interest (race).

Most (racial) field audit studies have been employed to investigate the presence

and effect of discrimination on housing and employment outcomes. These outcomes

seem appropriate given that residential segregation is referred to as the lynchpin of racial

inequalities and employment opportunities are assumed to provide “a way out” through

upward economic mobility. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) has conducted three of the largest audit studies in 1977 (Wienk, Reid, Herbig, &

Lee, 1979, as cited in Quillian, 2006), 1989 (Yinger, 1993), and 2000 (Turner, Ross,

Galster, & Yinger, 2002) to explore national housing discrimination for Black, Hispanic,

and Asian racial groups in comparison to White counterparts.

19
 In the 2000 study (Turner et al., 2002), pairs of auditors were recruited that

consisted of a White and a person of color who were matched on gender and age, and

assigned similar socioeconomic characteristics, such as marital status, family size, and

income. These paired auditors were also given training on how to behave in front of a

randomly selected agent in order to be as identical as possible except for race. Turner et

al. explored four discriminatory practices (variables) in rental and sales markets for each

matched pair, and investigated a fifth practice for sales markets only: 1) whether the

auditor is told the unit is available and told of other units (availability), 2) whether the

auditor can look at the unit (inspection), 3) cost of the unit (cost), 4) the extent of

encouragement to rent the unit by the realtor (encouragement), and for sales markets, 5)

whether the auditor is steered towards neighborhoods that match the auditor’s race (racial

steering).

The results of the study indicate that Whites were significantly favored in terms of

availability and inspection compared to Black or Hispanic counterparts in rental markets.

In sale markets, Whites were significantly favored in all practices compared to Blacks,

cost and steering in comparison to Hispanics, and all practices except racial steering in

comparison to Asians. This national study indicates that marginalized racial groups in the

21st century continue to face significant levels of housing discrimination.

In terms of employment, recent audit studies indicate similar conclusions

(Bendick, Jackson, Reinoso, 1994; Pager, 2003). Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004)

conducted one of the largest employment field tests by investigating callback rates to

4,890 resumes sent to over 1,300 job postings in Chicago and Boston newspapers. In this

20
study, the researchers used actual resumes, stripped them of identification information,

duplicated each resume, and categorized the pair (resume and corresponding copy) into a

high or low qualified resume group. Following, two resumes from each group were

assigned to a job posting and were randomly given stereotypical White-sounding names

(e.g., Greg Smith) and stereotypical Black-sounding names (e.g., Jamal Williams). The

results from over 1,300 job postings indicated that resumes with White-sounding names

received twice as many callbacks than the same resumes with Black-sounding names.

Further, the findings showed that low-quality resumes with White-sounding names

received a higher callback rate (10%) than high-quality resumes with Black-sounding

surnames (7.7%). All results were found statistically significant.

Sidanius and Pratto (1999) summarized more than 19 major employment audits in

five different nations (U.S.A., Germany, England, Canada, and Holland). Regardless of

the nation and with only a few exceptions, the results indicated a similar finding: a

statistically significant level of employment discrimination against marginalized racial

groups. In addition, these studies also indicated that discrimination occurred at all stages

of the employment process for marginalized racial groups, such as fewer opportunities to

interview, a lower starting salary, and less likely to be directed towards jobs with greater

monetary or career advancement (e.g., managerial positions).

Results from these housing and employment audit tests, provides a sample of

evidence that racial discrimination continues to permeate our egalitarian-valued society.

This finding, coupled with the legacy effects of past inhumane and subtle discriminatory

treatment, presents a case that racial discrimination has created and continues to create

21
societal and individual advantages for White Americans, and disadvantages for everyone

else. The general catalyst for such racial discrimination is racial biases that exist within

people’s heads, that is, racial prejudice, which is the next area of discussion.

Racial Prejudice

Racial prejudice is defined as a favorable attitude towards one’s racial ingroup

that can result in a range of attitudes towards racial outgroups (Allport, 1954; Brewer,

1999; Fiske, 2005). In addition, this favorable, racial attitude can consist of an emotion, a

cognition (e.g., stereotype), or a combination of the two (Henkel et al., 2006). As a result,

the range of attitudes towards racial outgroups can vary from feelings of indifference to

hostility, and lack of attributing positive stereotypes to endorsement of dehumanizing

beliefs. This in-group love, whether it leads to out-group hate or not, is believed to be the

primary force behind discriminatory behavior (Quillian, 2006).

Origins of Racial Prejudice

Prejudice is believed to develop from a variety of factors. Generally, racial

attitudes are suggested to arise from normative cognitive processes, which are then

promoted by motivational, psychodynamic, and sociocultural factors. The following

section focuses on the discussion and interplay between cognitive and motivational

processes – a general combination for study in prejudice research.

Cognitive Processes

At its root, prejudice is believed to result from the normative and necessary

cognitive processes of categorization that enable humans to simplify and comprehend a

complex and stimulating world. As Gordon Allport once indicated, “The human mind

22
must think with the aid of categories…Once formed, categories are the basis for normal

prejudgment. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends on it” (1954,

p. 19).

Numerous theories from the information processing and constructivism literature

provide detailed frameworks and explanations for this normative categorization process.

Following are similar aspects across these theories.

The first shared assumption is that the human mind is limited in capacity.

Depending on the specific theory, this limitation can occur at various points of processing

(e.g., selection or attention, Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; perception, Kohler, 1959;

temporal storage and manipulation, Miller, 1956; or organization, recall, and

interpretation, Anderson, 1984). A second shared postulation is that the human mind

develops and activates processes (e.g., selective attention, Gestalt effect, chunking,

schemata) that are based on stimuli categorization in order to compensate for limited

processing capabilities. A third premise is that this categorization process often becomes

automatic, again to free our limited cognitive capacity (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997); as

a result, the effect of automatic category activation can influence behavior without one’s

intention or awareness (e.g., Devine, 1989). In fact, “…most of a person’s everyday life

is determined not by their conscious intentions and deliberate choices but by mental

processes….that operate outside of conscious awareness and guidance” (Bargh &

Chartrand, 1999, p. 462). A fourth assumption is that once categories (i.e., schemata,

templates, stereotypes) are formed, new external information is quickly assimilated (or

accreted) and accommodated (or tuned) to preexisting categories, allowing for effective

23
cognitive development and efficient thought processing (e.g., Rumbelhart & Norman,

1978). A final aspect across theories is that humans strive to remain in a state of category

equilibrium (e.g., Piaget, 1985). Therefore, external stimuli that contradict, or cannot be

assimilated or accommodated into one’s internal mental structures, are either created into

new structures or often unseen, ignored, or rejected.

On the surface, these normative, efficient, and often automatic categorization

processes enable humans to function and to identify stimuli quickly in an over-

stimulated, fast-paced world. However, as with any benefit, there are tradeoffs. At the

price of functionality and stimuli identification is the cost of increased inaccuracy in

perceptions, judgments, and memories; as well as increased overgeneralizations (Yzebyt

& Corneille, 2005). Also, categorizations can become inflexible and undifferentiated due

to a lack of critical analysis, unless tied to one’s self-interest. As Allport (1954) indicated,

“While most of us have learned to be critical and open-minded in certain regions of

experience…life is just too short to have differentiated concepts about everything” (p.

173). Finally, the automatization of category activation can make de-automatization of

activation generally difficult when one’s self-interest changes.

Cognitive categorization processes lead to social categorization of individuals into

groups. Broadly, individuals begin to categorize themselves with individuals who are

similar (ingroups) from individuals who are different (outgroups; Allport, 1954). Due to

the limitations of categorization processing, a variety of negative social outcomes can

arise from this grouping process, such as an overestimation of the homogeneity,

consistency, and durability of group categories (Yzebyt & Corneille, 2005). As a result,

24
when an outgroup member is associated with a negative trait, aptitude, or behavior; these

outcomes could be attributed to an inherent dispositional feature of the entire group

simply because they are all alike. Combine this category-based assumption with a process

that is automatic, often subconscious, and generally inaccurate; and the result is a

potential insidious component of prejudice. But this is only the beginning.

Motivational Processes

With social categorization intact, motivational processes begin to influence

favoritism of the ingroup over the outgroup. One motivational process influencing such

ingroup favoritism is the theoretical assumption that a person’s social identity is derived

from memberships in social groups (e.g., Social Identity Theory, Tajfel & Turner, 1979;

Self-Categorization Theory, Turner, 1985). Just as people are likely to believe and

support good things about themselves (i.e., hold a positive self-identity or boost their self-

esteem), they are likely to believe and support good things about their identified groups

(i.e., hold a positive social identity; Tajfel, 1978). This need for holding a positive view

of one’s own group causes people to enhance views of their ingroup while, at times,

derogating outgroups (e.g., ethnocentrism). In fact, numerous studies have found that

intergroup biases can result from participants categorizing themselves into groups based

on the most minimal and arbitrary factors – a phenomenon referred to as the minimal

group paradigm (for review, see Brewer & Brown, 1998).

A second motivational process promoting intergroup biases is the perception of

threats, conflict, or competition between ingroups and outgroups. At the core of various

theories and models explaining different aspects of this process (e.g., Realistic Group

25
Conflict, LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Integrated Threat Theory of Prejudice, Stephan &

Stephan, 2000; Social Dominance Theory, Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; System Justification

Theory, Jost & Banaji, 1994; and Instrumental Model of Group Conflict, Esses, Jackson,

& Armstrong, 1998) lies the central assumption that ingroups will be favored and

outgroups, at times, will be discriminated against due to the perception of threat, conflict,

or competition (Esses, Jackson, Dovidio, & Hodson, 2005). The classic Robbers Cave

experiment can exemplify this process.

In a series of studies beginning in 1949, Sherif and colleagues assigned children

to two groups and brought them to a campsite (Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma).

The groups were first kept isolated from one another. After a handful of days, and as the

students began to become more aware of the other group’s presence, the researchers

initiated competition activities between the groups. These activities lasted a couple of

days, and for the remaining days, the researchers created a number of superordinate

scenarios that affected both groups, such as the camp’s drinking water supply running

dry. The researchers found that competition between groups produced intergroup biases

and discrimination, whereas cooperation and interdependence reduced such attitudes and

behaviors (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1988).

In summary, normative cognitive processes energized by motivational processes,

such as favoring one’s collective identity and perceiving group conflict or competition,

may give rise to not only ingroup love, but also outgroup hate (Brewer, 1999). These

processes are not only the cause and influence of racial prejudice, but also the unequal or

discriminatory treatment towards racial outgroups.

26
 Forms and Measurement of Racial Prejudice

Most people think of racial prejudice in its most obvious and blatant form. Within

psychology, prejudice is seen as much more complex and multifaceted. From changing

social norms and legislature acts in the last 40 years, researchers have found that blatant

expressions of racial attitudes have evolved to more subtle forms of expression. In

addition, due to recent advances in attitude measurement, psychologists have determined

people can hold racial attitudes not only at the conscious level, but also at the

subconscious level.

These modern forms of prejudice can lead to discrimination as detrimental as the

more overt prejudice form. One example is the onset of racial microaggressions, referred

to as “…subtle, stunning, often automatic, and non-verbal exchanges, which are ‘put

downs’” (Pierce, Carew, Pierce-Gonzalez, & Willis, 1978, p. 66). Examples of racial

microaggressions include: failing to include classroom curriculum for people of color

(further influencing invisibility), telling a person of color, “you are so articulate”

(suggesting that this is unusual), asking an Asian-American, “where were you born”

(suggesting that he or she is not American), stating “I’m not racist; I have several Black

friends” (indicating immunity to racism and solutions), asking a Black person “why do

you have to be so loud/animated” or to an Asian person “why are you so quiet?”

(suggesting assimilation to the dominant [White] culture), or steering a family of color to

a lower socioeconomic neighborhood to purchase a house (suggesting that they are not

affluent; Sue et al., 2007). Ironically, racial microaggressions have been found to

significantly increase more racial anger and frustration, and lower performance, and self-

27
esteem within people of color than more overt forms of discrimination (Solórzano, Ceja,

& Yosso, 2000).

The consequences of modern racial prejudice are substantial. Further, the

invisible nature of these prejudice forms, and their consequents such as microaggressions,

prevent people from realizing, tackling, and regulating their attitudes and behavior, as

well as their role in racial inequality. The next section provides a brief review of these

findings with an emphasis on subtle conscious and subconscious forms of racial

prejudice.

Blatant Conscious Prejudice

Before the Civil Rights era, racial prejudice was openly expressed and

discrimination was legally supported (e.g., de jure school segregation; anti-miscegenation

laws; see Klarman, 2004). Researchers have referred to this openly expressed and

conscious form of prejudice as blatant (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995), old-fashioned, or

even red-neck racism (McConahay, 1986). To measure blatant prejudice, researchers

asked direct survey questions about the biological inferiority or treatment of marginalized

racial groups. For example, in 1942 and 1945, the National Opinion Research Center (as

cited in Schuman et al., 1997) found that 53% of Whites agreed that their race was

intellectually superior to Blacks and 55% of Whites agreed that Whites should obtain the

first chance at a job opportunity over Blacks.

Near the end of the Civil Rights movement, legal discrimination was no longer

espoused and normative pressures to be nonprejudiced gradually increased (Dunton &

Fazio, 1997). These normative and legislature pressures led to a decline in blatant

28
prejudice on survey questionnaires (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998). By the mid-1990s, a

survey exploring Whites’ support for equal treatment regardless of race received nearly

unanimous support. As a result, researchers who first analyzed racial attitude surveys

suggested that racial prejudice is on the decline to nonexistence in the U.S. (e.g., see

Schuman et al., 1997, chapter 6).

However, current large racial inequalities and evidence of racial discrimination

suggest that racial prejudice is persisting in our society (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005;

Quillian, 2006). Therefore, many theorists have argued that racial prejudice has not

radically decreased but rather transformed in expression, and with consequences as

detrimental as blatant prejudice (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Sears, 1988).

Subtle Conscious Prejudice

This evolved racial prejudice has been theorized and coined various names (see

Table 1, first three columns). Despite the variation, there are three overlapping

components across these theories. First, most Americans today possess normative racial

attitudes and hold (or at least follow) egalitarian values. A second overlapping theme is

that most Americans may not express these racial attitudes and behaviors blatantly due to

current legislation and egalitarian social norms, aside from a small share of traditional

racists. Finally, and as a result, most Americans will generally express their prejudice

indirectly or subtly as when racial beliefs or behavior can be justified on some other

factor than race.

29
Table 1
Subtle Conscious Racial Prejudice Theories
Name Primary citation Brief description Set
Reject blatant prejudice but view marginalized
McConahay
Modern racism racial groups as receiving unfair, preferential
(1986)
treatment.
View marginalized racial groups as not trying
hard enough to overcome difficulties they face
Racial Kinder and Sanders
and taking what they have not earned; Prejudice
resentment (1996)
is expressed in the language of American
individualism.
First set
Antipathy towards an out-group expressed by
Pettigrew and defending one’s in-group values, exaggerating
Subtle prejudice
Meertens (1995) out-group differences, and denying positive
emotional responses towards out-group members.
Reject blatant prejudice but express prejudice
indirectly by opposing policies that could help
Sears
Symbolic racism marginalized racial groups because it runs against
(1988)
learned morals and values. Similar to modern
racism.
Experience a conflict between positive and
Ambivalent Katz and Hass
negative emotions towards marginalized racial
racism (1988)
groups. Second set
Gaertner and Dovidio Believe in egalitarianism but have a personal
Aversive racism
(1986) aversion towards marginalized racial groups.
Note: From “The Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale,” by P. J. Henry and D. O. Sears, 2002, Political
Psychology, 23, pp. 253-283.

Subtle racial prejudice theories can be categorized into two different sets (Table 1,

last column). The first set includes symbolic racism, modern racism, racial resentment,

and subtle prejudice theories. These theories conceptualize prejudice each a little

differently but with the shared assumption that: Whites harbor negative feelings or

stereotypes towards marginalized racial groups, they express this prejudice indirectly or

secretly by opposing public or social policies for preferential treatment, and justify their

negative attitudes are due to marginalized racial groups (or public policies developed for

these groups) violating or will possibly violate traditional American values (Henry &

30
Sears, 2002). For example, Whites may view affirmative action programs as unwarranted

or preposterous because they violate direct American values of meritocracy or equal

opportunity. They may view these programs as unfair impositions to the just and fair

society of America and may question, “Why should they [marginalized racial groups] get

special treatment?”

The major consequence of these theories is that subtle racial attitudes may

influence Whites to discriminate and block public policies that could improve racial

inequality and discrimination. Many researchers have found this set of theories helps

explain why Whites oppose affirmative action, welfare spending, tax-reduction policies

(Kinder & Sanders, 1996; Sears, 1988), why Whites oppose race-targeted government

polices more than policies for the poor (Bobo & Kluegel, 1993) and why Black

candidates for political office become so controversial (Kinder & Sears, 1981).

The second set of subtle racial prejudice theories, aversive and ambivalent racism,

share some of the same features as the first set, but involve more mixed emotions and are

more common attitudes of liberal and educated Whites. Sociologists Gaertner and

Dovidio (1986) described their aversive racism as the following. Whites will tend to

suppress or avoid expressing their racial biases because of their egalitarian self-image.

Consequently, they will tend to experience anxiety and discomfort during interracial

situations and try to avoid these situations or at least from “appearing racist.” These

individuals will regularly engage in forms of aversion and manifest their feelings in

subtle, rationalized ways (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999).

31
 The description for the theory of ambivalent racism is somewhat similar to

aversive racism. Katz and Hass (1988) suggested that Whites have both pro-Black

feelings rooted in egalitarianism and sympathy, and anti-Black feelings due to dissonance

with American (i.e., White) values. Both positive and negative feelings towards Blacks

exist simultaneously within individuals, can create tension and discomfort, and can help

explain the ambivalence for individuals endorsing egalitarian values but failing to support

racial equality programs. For instance, in situations or contexts emphasizing

egalitarianism, ambivalent racists would be positive toward Blacks viewing them as

victims of discrimination or the “underdog” (e.g., “Yes, there should be more college

scholarships for Blacks”). However, in situations that run against American values such

as independence or self-reliance (or that create disadvantages for Whites because

American values may actually represent White values; Devos & Banaji, 2005)

ambivalent racists might be negative toward Blacks (e.g., “But this should not come as an

expense to other students [meaning White students]”).

Consequences of this aversive/ambivalent prejudice are similar to the first set of

subtle racial theories—they can lead to resisting public policies designed to increase

racial equality (Katz & Hass, 1988). In addition, researchers have found that

ambivalent/aversive racism could motivate many forms of modern discrimination and

prevent intergroup contact or integration. One classic example by Gaertner and Dovidio

(1977) investigated how many times White participants suggested they would help either

a White or a Black victim in two different scenarios: where the White participant was the

only witness, or where the White participant was part of a group of White witnesses. The

32
researchers found that White participants would help both victims regardless of race

when they were the only witness. However, when the White participant was part of a

group of witnesses, the researchers found that White participants helped Black victims

38% of the time and White victims 75% of the time. Gaertner and Dovidio speculated

that these White participants in this study rationalized a reason not to help based on some

other factor than race (i.e., “There are other witnesses that can help”). These researchers

have also found more recent and similar results with experiments investigating hiring and

criminal justice decisions (for a review see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005). Aversive racism

has also been posited as some of the reasoning behind the controversy of the delayed

response and racial accusations during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath (Henkel et al.,

2006).

Generally, both sets of subtle racial prejudice theories are measured by subtle

self-report scales. For example, the Subtle Prejudice Scale (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995)

is composed of three sub-scales: "defense of traditional values" (e.g., a target group

violates one’s in-group values), "exaggeration of cultural differences" (e.g., belief

dissimilarity triggered by stereotypes), and "denial of positive emotions" (e.g., Latinos

are not lazy, but they are not ambitious either; pp. 59-60). Another example is the

Symbolic Racism Scale (Henry & Sears, 2002) that is composed of four specific

components: Blacks fail to progress due to their unwillingness to work hard, Blacks are

demanding too much, denial that racial discrimination currently exists, and the sense that

Blacks have received more than they deserve.

33
Subconscious Prejudice

Mainly in the 1990’s, new advances in attitude measurement enabled cognitive

psychologists to find a different expression of attitudes toward marginalized racial

groups: subconscious (implicit) racial prejudice. From laboratory techniques focusing on

behavior responses such as response latency procedures or priming tasks, psychologists

found that conscious attitudes are only partly responsible for discriminatory behavior.

Racial prejudice can operate or be expressed subconsciously—without conscious intent

or awareness—and greatly influence judgment and action, even for individuals who

renounce or score low on subtle prejudice measures (e.g., Devine, 1989, 2001; Dovidio,

Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997; Fazio & Olson, 2003).

The central tenet within subconscious prejudice research is that all individuals

internalize or develop racial stereotypes, feelings, or evaluations of out-groups and these

associations can be automatically activated without conscious awareness or control by the

mere presence (actual or symbolic) of an external stimulus (e.g., a marginalized racial

group member; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995; Wittenbrink, Judd & Park,

1997). For example, an encounter with an African-American may trigger subconscious

feelings, evaluations, or stereotypes in the same way an encounter with a pitbull may

trigger a set of implicit associations.

Patricia Devine (1989) was one of the first researchers to investigate the

consequences of subconscious racial prejudice, particularly subconscious stereotypes. To

measure subconscious attitudes, Devine used a priming method that subliminally primed

subjects by being quickly shown a word or image before beginning a task. Devine found

34
that subjects who were primed stereotypical words related to Blacks interpreted a hostile

vignette much more aggressive than subjects primed with nonracial terms, even those

subjects who scored low on subtle conscious prejudice measures. Other studies—using

various subconscious laboratory techniques—have also shown discriminatory behavior

effects of subconscious prejudice.

To list a couple, Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998) measured

subconscious racial attitudes using the computerized Implicit Association Test (IAT).

The IAT measures a person’s latency response time (association) between a

discrimination of a target-concept, discrimination of an attribute dimension, the

discrimination of the two tasks combined, and then the discrimination of the two tasks

combined in reverse. In their study, the initial discrimination was to distinguish common

White first names with Black first names, the attribute dimension was to distinguish

pleasant versus unpleasant words, and then the combination and reverse combination of

the two (e.g., White names with pleasant words and Black names with unpleasant words,

and then White names with unpleasant words and Black names with pleasant words). The

researchers found that almost all of the 26 White subjects were faster at matching

pleasant words with their own race and Blacks with unpleasant words rather than the

reverse order.

Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink (2002) also measured subconscious prejudice

using latency response time but with a video shooting game that they developed. The

game showed 10 Black and 10 White target images appearing in the game four times,

twice as a target with a gun, and twice as a target without a gun. In the first study, 40

35
undergraduate (39 White, 1 Latino) students were told to decide to shoot a person holding

a gun (by hitting a key on the keyboard) and not to shoot the person without a gun

(hitting another keyboard key). The researchers found that participants, on average,

decided to shoot Blacks who were armed more quickly than armed Whites, and decided

not to shoot unarmed Whites more quickly than unarmed Blacks; the differences were

statistically significant. In the second study, the researchers explored the error rates

(accidentally shooting an unarmed target or not shooting an unarmed target) with 44

undergraduates (42 White, 1 Latino, 1 Asian). The results indicated that participants, on

average, significantly and mistakenly decided to shoot an unarmed target more often if he

was Black, and decided not to shoot an armed target more often if he was White.

From these results and numerous other studies, there are some basic postulations

regarding subconscious racial prejudice. First, subconscious prejudice appears, at times,

to be different than conscious racial attitudes. Fazio and Olson (2003) found that most

studies investigating the relation between these two attitudes find low and insignificant

correlations, particularly with subconscious and subtle conscious racial prejudice. A

second finding is that subconscious prejudice appears to be nearly universal within

individuals (Devine, 1989; Greenwald et al., 1998). For example, Nosek, Banaji, &

Greenwald (2002) found that 70 to 90% of 200,000 Whites sampled (recruited from the

media and assessed through the IAT website) were found to have subconscious prejudice

via the IAT towards Blacks. Third, subconscious prejudice can manifest into

discriminatory behavior, especially if not controlled or monitored.

36
 For instance, in Devine’s 1989 study, the researcher found, on average, that both

high level and low level subtle conscious prejudiced individuals (as measured by the

Modern Racism Scale) held subconscious racial stereotypes of Blacks. However, only

those with low subtle conscious prejudice were able to control and block these

subconscious stereotypes from manifesting into discrimination. That is, when asked to

list as many alternate labels for, and all of their thoughts in reference to, “Black

Americans,” low subtle conscious prejudiced individuals listed similar negative labels of

Black Americans as high subtle prejudiced individuals. (This result confirms Devine’s

previous finding that both high and low subtle conscious prejudice individuals, on

average, hold subconscious racial stereotypes.) On the other hand, with writing their

thoughts about Blacks, low subtle conscious prejudice individuals listed more positive

than negative thoughts and this was significantly different than high subtle conscious

prejudiced individuals who listed more negative than positive thoughts. Therefore,

Devine concluded that subconscious prejudice can lead to discrimination, but if a person

has the motivation or desire (low subtle conscious prejudice), and the cognitive attention

and ability to control these automatic thoughts, this could substantially decrease

subconscious stereotypes from manifesting into behavior. However, she noted that having

the attention and ability to control these automatic thoughts can be a very tedious,

difficult, and cognitively taxing process.

For example, Correll and colleagues (2002) found in their videogame shooting

experiment that subtle prejudice scores (as measured by the Modern Racism Scale) were

not significantly related to participants’ shooter bias, because, they reasoned, high and

37
low subtle prejudiced individuals had to make decisions under pressure. Therefore, low

prejudiced individuals (although they had the motivation and desire) did not have the

opportunity (like in Devine’s study) to control their subconscious prejudice from

manifesting into discrimination.

Dovidio, Kawakami, and Gaertner (2000) found that even when individuals have

the desire to monitor and control these automatic attitudes (i.e., have low levels of subtle

conscious prejudice) and the opportunity (e.g., after White students took a subconscious

racial prejudice measure, these individuals participated in an interracial conversation with

a Black confederate), subconscious prejudice still leaked out in more subtle behaviors,

such as abnormal eye contact and body language (as observed by the confederates and

triangulated by outside coders via taped videos of the conversations). These researchers

implied that this could explain why intergroup situations are often awkward and

uncomfortable for both parties.

Therefore, subconscious prejudice can lead to discrimination when individuals are

unmotivated to control these attitudes (i.e., have higher levels of subtle conscious

prejudice) or when decisions are made under pressure (i.e., when individuals are

essentially not monitoring or controlling their automatic associations). Subconscious

attitudes can also manifest in nonverbal discriminatory behavior even when the above

criteria is met.

In summary, although blatant expressions of prejudice have declined within the

last 40 years, racial discrimination continues to exist. To help explain this phenomenon,

researchers have developed various theories suggesting that prejudice is now more

38
subtlety expressed, and that most Americans hold racial attitudes at the subconscious

level that can influence behavior subconsciously. As a result from these attitudes, Whites

may deny the existence of racial discrimination, rarely support government programs for

racial equality, and attribute racial inequality or discrimination—when recognized—to

factors other than race such as Latinos or Blacks not working hard enough (Quillian,

2006). In addition, Whites may also endorse cultural stereotypes, develop some negative

feelings toward other groups (e.g., fear, disgust, discomfort), avoid intergroup contact,

and cultivate more positive feelings of their own group (Henkel et al., 2006). Therefore, it

appears that although current racial attitudes are less obvious, the consequences are still

visible.

Chapter Summary

The social uplifting of people of color to an assured and self-sustaining position in

comparison to White Americans has yet to be achieved. Evidence presented in this

chapter indicates that past and current racial discrimination continues to influence these

inequalities. Due to the rise in egalitarian beliefs and social norms within the last century,

racial discrimination and prejudice has not decreased but rather altered to a subtler form.

In addition, research has found that prejudice exists at the subconscious level, with

consequences just as devastating as the effects of conscious attitudes. Because racial

prejudice is believed to be the primary force behind discriminatory behavior, targeting

variables that reduce these subtle and subconscious attitudes may provide the best hope

for an instrument of social regeneration – a challenging task explored in the next chapter.

39
 CHAPTER 3: THE SOLUTION

As a result of the persistence and consequences of racial prejudice, research has

identified many psychological and intergroup processes that can improve racial attitudes,

and therefore, discrimination. Recent models of prejudice reduction (e.g., Amodio &

Devine, 2005; Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001; Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, &

Vance, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999) indicate that three general conditions are

needed to improve racial attitudes. The first condition is an individual must be conscious

of racial biases. Once conscious, the second condition is the individual must become

motivated to change or regulate such biases. This desire can result from a variety of

processes, such as resolving the cognitive dissonance one may experience between

egalitarian values and racial biases, extending or reducing the benefits of social ingroup

favoritism, or experiencing empathy. The last condition needed to reduce racial prejudice

and discrimination is the individual must have cognitive regulatory strategies to continue

consciousness and regulation of racial biases.

Conditions for Racial Prejudice Reduction

Racial Consciousness

For definitional purposes, consciousness refers to one’s attention and awareness

to thoughts, motives, emotions, as well as external stimuli. Awareness, in this context,

refers to the background of consciousness, consisting of monitoring internal and external

stimuli; attention is described as the process of focusing one’s awareness, providing

heightened sensitivity to limited stimuli for varying lengths of time (Brown & Ryan,

2003). Racial consciousness, therefore, is described as one’s awareness and attention

40
specifically focused towards internal racial stimuli (e.g., racial prejudice – Rowe,

Bennett, & Atkinson, 1994) or racial external stimuli (e.g., racial group members or

discrimination – Banton, 1997).

An individual’s racial consciousness can be influenced indirectly or directly. One

indirect medium is contact with racial outgroup members. Racial intergroup contact has

been found to increase awareness and attention to racial stimuli, which then influences

mediating variables of racial prejudice reduction (discussed shortly), such as empathy and

social categorization of racial groups, and finally, as a result, reduces racial prejudice

levels (see review by Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003). For example, Pettigrew

and Tropp (2006) meta-analyzed over 713 research samples and found that in 94% of the

studies reviewed, intergroup contact was associated with lower levels of racial prejudice2.

Moreover, racial consciousness can be influenced through direct media such as

participation in racial intervention programs like multicultural education, intergroup

dialogue, or antiracism training. Regardless of the medium, an increase in racial

awareness and attention can influence a decrease in racial attitudes and therefore, less

discriminatory behavior with racial outgroups. This effect of racial consciousness on

racial prejudice can be explained by a variety of mediating, motivational variables, three

of which are cognitive dissonance, social re(de)categorization, and empathy.

2
In this meta-analysis, effect sizes were greater for studies that structured intergroup contact under Gordon
Allport’s (1954) optimal conditions: equal status between groups, common goals, intergroup cooperation,
and the support of authorities. However, it should be noted that Pettigrew and Tropp found that these
conditions were not essential (i.e., seventy-five percent out of the 670 studies found effective in reducing
racial prejudice were not structured in line with Allport’s conditions, although effect sizes were smaller as
well).
41
 Motivation Variables

Cognitive Dissonance

An increase in awareness and attention to external and internal racial biases can

reduce conscious and subconscious racial prejudice, as well as promote favorable

treatment towards racial outgroups by increasing one’s cognitive dissonance. Because

most Americans today endorse or follow egalitarian values, raising awareness of and

attention to conscious racial biases can create cognitive dissonance within an individual.

When one becomes aware of this inconsistency, it can arouse many negative feelings

such as guilt or shame, which in turn “…motivate[s] the development of more favorable

racial attitudes and produce more favorable intergroup behaviors (even nonverbal

behaviors) several months later” (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999, p. 102). As a result, this

dissonance can influence people to inhibit or reprocess their own negative attitudes

(Pedersen et al., 2005), as well as promote positive behavior towards racial outgroups.

An increase in cognitive dissonance can even reduce one’s subconscious racial

attitudes. The negative emotions that arise from becoming conscious of automatic

stereotypical behaviors can motivate individuals who hold egalitarian values, or at least

adhere to egalitarian social norms, to consciously inhibit negative responses, and with

practice, can eventually eliminate negative stereotype activation (Devine & Monteith,

1993). For example, when low-prejudice individuals become aware of their failure to

control subconscious prejudice, the dissonance they experience will create control cues

for future situations; these cues can then influence individuals to carefully consider and

prevent future automatic prejudices and behavior from manifesting (Monteith, Ashburn-

42
Nardo, Voils, & Czopp, 2002). However, Devine (1989) noted that awareness of and

attention to racial biases to continually create cognitive dissonance, as well as

consciously inhibiting prejudice once conscious, is difficult to carry through, much like a

bad habit that requires much attention, effort, and time (i.e., cognitive resources).

Social Re(De)Categorization

A rise in racial consciousness can also reduce racial prejudice by increasing

interconnectedness or realizing racial similarities between ingroups and outgroups (i.e.,

social recategorization), and realizing racial differentiation of racial grouped members

(i.e., social decategorization). An increase in either of these variables can transform one’s

cognitive categorization of ingroup/outgroup membership, and therefore improve racial

attitudes and behavior towards outgroups.

According to social categorization theories such as Social Identity theory (Tajfel

& Turner, 1979), recategorizing or broadening an individual’s conception of ingroup

membership (e.g., realizing a superordinate membership or common humanity) would

extend the benefits of ingroup favoritism to former outgroup members. As a result, social

recategorization has been found to reduce racial attitudes and discriminatory behavior

towards racial outgroups and members (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999; Gaertner & Dovidio,

2000).

43
 Similarly, an increase in attention and awareness to racial group members can

influence people to decategorize race membership. That is, people begin to perceive

themselves, or members of racial outgroups, as separate individuals rather than members

of racial groups. Therefore, this social decategorization process can either reduce the

salience of ingroup identity, which can reduce ingroup favoritism; or reduce outgroup

categorization, which can reduce racial attitudes towards the racial outgroup by

undermining racial stereotypes (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005).

Empathy

An increase in racial consciousness can also promote favorable behavior and

reduce racial prejudice through a variable that is different but related to cognitive

dissonance and transformation of one’s categorization of group membership: empathy

towards racial outgroups. Empathy generally refers to the ability of taking the perspective

of another person (Stephan & Finlay, 1999). The greater the awareness and attention to

racial outgroups and racial discrimination, the greater the possibility of perceiving the

world from a racial outgroup’s perspective. Stephen and Finlay reviewed studies

investigating the effects of empathy on ingroups’ attitudes and behavior towards a variety

of marginalized outgroups from people who identify as gay to prisoners. Their review of

the literature indicated that empathy improves attitudes and behavior towards a variety of

outgroups – marginalized racial groups included.

Some explanations of how empathy can reduce racial attitudes and behavior

include the following. Viewing the world from a racial outgroup member’s perspective

may increase the possibility of seeing racial discrimination directed towards this member,

44
which then may induce cognitive dissonance with one’s egalitarian beliefs. Empathy

could also influence one’s perception of social categorization. For instance, perspective

taking can increase perceiving similarities between ingroups and outgroups, which can

reduce feelings of threat or competition with racial outgroups, or broaden one’s ingroup

categorization and therefore, extend one’s ingroup favoritism towards former outgroups.

Further, empathy can produce a greater concern of welfare for racial outgroup members,

which therefore, influences more positive beliefs and affect towards members of these

groups.

All three of these motivational variables (i.e., cognitive dissonance, social

re(de)categorization, and empathy) can mediate the effect of an individual’s degree of

racial consciousness on her or his racial attitudes and behavior. In other words, the

greater one’s racial consciousness, the greater the possibility of influencing cognitive

dissonance with one’s egalitarian beliefs, seeing similarities across or differences within

racial groups, and experiencing empathy, all of which have been found to reduce racial

prejudice. However, previous researchers have found that consciousness and motivation

are not the only conditions needed to reduce racial biases. To continue consciousness and

regulation of racial biases, a cognitive regulatory strategy is required.

Cognitive Regulatory Strategies

Reducing racial prejudice is like breaking a bad habit (Devine, 1989). To break

such a tendency, awareness and attention, as well as motivation, are of course required.

However, if an individual does not possess cognitive resources to develop and practice

45
regulatory strategies to continue one’s recognition or intention, the habit will likely

persist (Devine et al., 2002).

Numerous studies have found that racial attitudes, especially subconscious

prejudice, can manifest even when an individual is highly racial conscious and motivated

(internally or externally) to overcome racial biases (e.g., Blair and Banaji, 1996;

Kawakami, Dovidio, Moll, Hermsen, & Russin, 2000). However, other studies have

found that some highly racial conscious and motivated individuals can regulate racial

biases, even when cognitive constraints are high, due to developing and practicing

cognitive regulatory strategies (see Devine et al., 2002).

Limitations to Racial Prejudice Reduction

The discussion so far appears to paint a rather optimistic picture: Higher racial

consciousness can result in motivational processes that can reduce racial prejudice if

sufficient and continual cognitive resources are present. However, most White Americans

do not hold a high degree of racial consciousness. In addition, increasing Whites’ low

degree of racial consciousness may result in negative motivational outcomes, such as

resistance to prejudice reduction or an increase in racial prejudice. Further, even if racial

consciousness and motivation to reduce racial biases is increased, such as through

intergroup contact, developing and practicing cognitive strategies to continue awareness

of, attention to, and regulation of racial biases is particularly challenging. These

limitations, which are explained in further detail below, help explain why racial

discrimination continues to exist in our society between Whites and people of color, as

46
well as why scholars continue to struggle with how to tackle racial prejudice in America

(Manglitz et al., 2005).

Low Racial Consciousness

Most White Americans do not hold, or continue to hold, a high degree of racial

consciousness due to a variety of reasons. One main reason is that “[i]n addressing race,

in the law, in literature, in popular culture, in communication studies, in religion or other

areas of our lives, [W]hiteness is privileged, normalized, defied, and raceless” (Johnson,

1999, p. 1). Moreover, whiteness cannot see itself except through the reflection of what it

sees itself as not. In other words, Whites are not aware and attentive to race simply

because they do not need to (i.e., because of their White privilege, defined as the

unearned advantages and immunity granted to or enjoyed by Whites just from being

White). For instance, “Whites do not look at the world through a filter of racial

awareness, even though Whites are, of course, members of a race. The power to ignore

race, when White is the race, is a privilege, a societal advantage” (Wildman & Davis,

1997, pp. 317-318). However, when this social advantage or privilege is threatened or

compromised, Whites increase their racial consciousness, at least in respect to their own

racial identity. A prime example of such an occurrence is when Whites feel victims of

reverse discrimination as a result of affirmative action policies. Some public opinion

polls indicate that between half and three-fourths of Whites surveyed believe that, as a

racial group, they are routinely discriminated against from such policies (Pincus, 2002).

47
 A second reason Whites tend to have, and may continue to have, a low degree of

racial consciousnesses is due to limited contact with racial outgroups. For instance,

Whites in primary and secondary school, on national average, attend public schools with

a student body that is 80% White (Frankenberg et al., 2003). In addition, current racially

segregated neighborhoods and real estate steering, discussed in chapter 2, further prevent

racial outgroup contact. And even if there is diversity within an environment (e.g.,

school, neighborhood, workplace), intergroup contact may still be unlikely, as people

prefer to interact with people who look, and culturally act and talk like themselves

(Moody, 2001).

Negative Motivational Outcomes

Because most Whites are not highly aware or attentive to racial biases, scholars

have focused on programs or interventions to increase Whites’ racial consciousness.

However, one main limitation with this approach is that when Whites experience an

increase in racial consciousness, they will likely experience self-esteem or ego threats,

and negative or unwanted emotions (e.g., guilt, anger), which can increase resistance to

exploration of their racial attitudes and behaviors (Pedersen et al., 2005).

For example, post-decisional cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling

that people may experience when they realize that a rejected decision might have been

better than their chosen decision (Brehm, 1956, as cited in Gawronski, Strack, &

Bodenhausen, 2008). To reduce this threat or feeling, people will tend to emphasize or

search for positive reasons of their chosen decision and negative reasons of the rejected

(but better) decision (Gawronski et al.). Thus, those who have decided (or simply believe)

48
that they are not prejudiced or that discrimination does not exist may try to support their

decision/belief when exposed to contrary evidence.

In fact, “…[attitude] change, especially when it is not sought by participants, is

often difficult, stressful, uncomfortable, unpleasant, and perhaps coercive” (p. 23).

Generally, most Whites experience a strong sense of guilt, denial, or “guilt by

association” when first becoming aware of racial prejudice or discrimination, which can

result in resistance as Tatum (1994) explained:

These feelings are uncomfortable and can lead White students to resist learning

about race and racism. And who can blame them? If learning about racism means

seeing oneself as an oppressor, one of the bad guys, then of course there will be

resistance. (p. 463)

The negative emotions or perceived threat resulting from an increase in racial

consciousness can even increase Whites’ racial prejudice levels. Branscombe et al.

(2007) randomly assigned 189 White undergraduates to one of three conditions. In the

two experimental groups, students were asked to write about ways they have been either

privileged or disadvantaged because of their White racial group membership. In the

control group, students were asked to write about their general life experiences. After the

thought-listing task, all participants completed a racial prejudice measure. The

researchers found that those who thought and wrote about White privilege expressed

significantly greater racial prejudice than the other two conditions.

49
 Difficulty with Developing and Practicing Cognitive Regulatory Strategies

Awareness of and attention to racial biases, as well as consciously regulating

prejudice (especially subconscious attitudes) is a difficult task, requiring sufficient

cognitive resources to develop and practice regulatory strategies (Devine & Monteith,

1993; Kawakami et al., 2000). Reasons for this regulation difficulty lie in cognitive

constraints and the normative, cognitive, categorization process of racial attitudes

highlighted in chapter 2, such as category automatization (Devine & Monteith, 1999).

Cognitive automatization research centers on how automatic processing

contributes to successful mental functioning and adaptation. For instance, “…most of a

person’s everyday life is determined not by their conscious intentions and deliberate

choices but by mental processes….that operate outside of conscious awareness and

guidance” (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999, p. 462). Automaticity frees our mental capacity

from tasks that no longer require attention in order to direct our energy and focus towards

those things that need our concentration.

Unfortunately, activation of racial biases falls into this automatic cognitive

process, especially for individuals who may have low racial consciousness and low self-

interest. However, numerous studies from Devine, Monteith, and colleagues (see Devine

et al., 2002) found that even Whites who hold a high degree of racial consciousness, may

still express racial biases due to the difficulty of regulating racial biases; but the degree of

expression is moderated by cognitive regulatory strategies.

50
 In sum, an increase in racial awareness and attention can reduce racial prejudice

through a variety of motivational variables when cognitive resources are and continue to

be sufficient. Unfortunately, many Whites do not hold a high degree of racial

consciousness, and if increased, many Whites may experience negative or unwanted

emotions, which can resist exploration or increase levels of racial attitudes and behavior.

Further, developing and practicing cognitive strategies to regulate racial biases is a

difficult task even for high racially conscious individuals. Therefore, a process is needed

to raise Whites’ degree of racial awareness and attention, while at the same time, reduce

negative motivational outcomes and provide cognitive regulatory strategies. A process

that can offer a solution is an individual’s degree of mindfulness towards race (i.e., racial

mindfulness). However, before exploring how racial mindfulness can decrease an

individual’s level of racial prejudice, a thorough discussion of mindfulness is needed.

Mindfulness

The concept of mindfulness originates from Buddhist psychology. Translations

from early Buddhist literature describe mindfulness as a state of awareness, free of

reactions or judgment (Gunaratana, 1992; Mace, 2008). Current cognitive psychology

describes the concept similarly. During consciousness, stimuli is brought into awareness

and held in focal attention briefly, if at all, before an emotional or cognitive reaction is

made. These reactions are filtered often in a discriminate nature usually in reference to

the self, conditioned based on past or similar experience, and assimilated or

accommodated into existing cognitive schemas (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007). The

outcome of such processing is a well-oiled machine, imposing concepts, labels, and

51
judgments, often automatically, to stimuli brought into attention and awareness (Bargh &

Chartrand, 1999). The process results in a variety of benefits, including “…the

establishment and maintenance of order upon events and experience of relevance to the

self, and the facilitation of goal pursuit and attainment” (Brown et al., p. 212). The main

limitation with this mode of processing, however, is that stimuli are rarely observed

impartially without biases in reference to the self or prior conditioning.

Contrary to consciousness, a mindfulness mode of processing involves attention

and awareness to stimuli, but with open receptivity, preventing the overlay of

discriminative, categorical and habitual reactions. An individual is “present” to reality as

it is, rather than viewing the world through conceptual filters, categories, and biases. In

this way, mindfulness is defined as attention to and awareness of present events and

experiences with open receptivity (Brown & Ryan, 2003). In addition, mindfulness can

be conceptualized as either as a state or a relatively stable disposition (i.e., tendency to

abide in mindful states over time).

Paths and Benefits

A mindfulness mode of cognitive processing has been considered an inherent

human capacity, varying naturally in degree of stability and frequency within individuals

(Goldstein, 2002; Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Accordingly, mindfulness can be cognitively

enhanced by exercises, ancient and new. Two different practices that can improve the

stability and frequency of mindfulness are mindfulness meditation (stemming from

Buddhist psychology) and actively drawing new cognitive distinctions or categories

(accredited to cognitive psychologist Ellen Langer). Both paths have shown that an

52
increase in mindfulness can lead to many physical, psychological, and interpersonal

benefits, regardless of which course is taken.

Mindfulness Meditation

The first path to cultivating mindfulness is mindfulness meditation—otherwise

referred to as Vipasanna or insight meditation. This meditation practice is a process of

deepening attention and awareness of oneself and involves:

…examining who we are, with questioning our view of the world and our place

in it, and with cultivating some appreciation for the fullness of each moment we

are alive; most of all, it has to do with being in touch. (Kabat-Zinn, 1994, p. 3)

The meditation generally begins with the practitioner reconnecting the mind and

the body, usually by focusing on one’s breathing. The practitioner then tries not to

constrict attention, but observe and welcome any emotional, mental, or physical

experiences as they occur, and from a stance of nonattachment, nonjudgment, and

noninterpretation. The breath is continually used as an anchor to return attention when the

mind wanders or when the mind starts to attach, judge, or interpret an experience. This

process of focused breathing and allowing thoughts and feelings to come and go as they

please is repeated for a certain amount of time. In some mindfulness meditations, a

certain concept is trained upon, or brought into focused awareness such as lovingkindness

(Kabat-Zinn, 1994), openness, or nonattachment (Hanh, 1975).

Mindfulness meditation is suggested to develop many beneficial qualities.

According to Chappell (2003), “Mindfulness meditation is a manner to defuse our ego,

our hurts, and our attachments, and a way to find sympathy and compassion with others,

53
and an area for discovering creative new options” (p. 264). Anticipating these benefits,

Western clinicians and psychologists have introduced mindfulness into many treatment

programs. One of the more prominent programs is Jon Kabat-Zinn’s Mindfulness-Based

Stress Reduction Program (MBSR; 1982). Other programs include Mindfulness-Based

Cognitive Therapy (MBCT; Teasdale et al., 2000), Dialectal Behavior Therapy (Linehan,

1993), and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson,

1999) to name a few. By and large, mindfulness interventions have been found to reduce

a variety of conditions including chronic pain, stress, anxiety, depression, somatization,

and eating disorders, as well as enhance participants’ overall sense of well-being (for

review see Baer, 2003).

For example, Shapiro et al. (1998) investigated the effects of an 8-week

mindfulness meditation intervention on 70 premedical and medical students using a

randomized intervention group and a wait-listed control group (i.e., a group of

participants that serve as a control group while the experimental group receives the

intervention. The control group later receives the treatment after a waiting period, usually

when the study is completed). Prior to treatment, the researchers found no significant

differences on outcome measures between the two groups. However, after the

intervention, analyses indicated that the intervention group, compared to the control

group, significantly decreased on measures of overall psychological distress, depression,

state anxiety, trait anxiety; and significantly increased on overall empathy and sense of

spirituality.

54
 In addition, Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, and Walach (2004) meta-analyzed and

aggregated effect sizes for 20 mindfulness studies (N=1605 in total) that included both

uncontrolled and stringently controlled mindfulness meditation investigations. The

researchers found significant medium effect sizes for mental and physical variables in

both uncontrolled and controlled studies.

Aside from clinical settings, mindfulness meditation has also been incorporated

into education, and with beneficial effects. Jack Miller from the University of Toronto

has implemented this path of mindfulness within his holistic graduate courses to over

1000 students since 1988 (Miller & Nozawa, 2002). In these courses, students are

required to practice mindfulness meditation and record their experience through reflective

journaling. From the narrative descriptions within these journals, as well as evaluative

feedback from students, Miller (1995) found reoccurring themes; mindfulness meditation

increased the students’ self-efficacy, awareness, connectedness with others, and personal

well-being (e.g., reduction in stress). In a follow-up study (Miller & Nozawa), one

student wrote:

And that place of gentleness, and presence, and mindfulness, breathing and really

living in some healthy way of connecting, well, it connects you with yourself, but

it also connects you to those around you. I mean there’s a sense of common soul.

There’s just a sense that we are all just one. (p. 189)

In short, meditation mindfulness has been empirically found to increase many

physical and psychological outcomes. As a result, many Western researchers are

55
beginning to introduce this meditation practice to provide a variety of benefits within

their areas of specialty.

Actively Drawing New Distinctions

Straying away from the traditional and reflective style of mindfulness meditation,

a second path to cultivating mindfulness is attributed to Ellen Langer, a social psychology

professor at Harvard. Langer (1989) found that a mindfulness mode of processing arises

with stimuli that are novel or atypical; therefore, an individual can increase one’s

mindfulness by actively drawing new cognitive categories or distinctions. According to

Langer and Moldoveanu (2000), “It does not matter whether what is noticed is important

or trivial, as long as it is new to the viewer. Actively drawing these distinctions keeps us

situated in the present” (pp. 1-2).

Most of Langer’s research stems from investigating the mindset opposite to

mindfulness, “mindlessness,” as she poetically describes as, “When the lights are on, but

no one is home” (p. 9). According to Langer (2000), when we are mindless we are

experiencing automaticity. We are relying on distinctions drawn in the past, stuck in

single or rigid perspectives, unaware of other ways of knowing, our behavior is routine

and predetermined, and we our oblivious to noticing new things. However, when

mindful, we experience all the opposite: We are more sensitive to the environment and to

the present, we have a greater openness to new information, we create new or broader

categories, and have an enhanced awareness of multiple perspectives.

56
 In her book, Mindfulness, Langer (1989) summarizes numerous research studies

showing the beneficial effects of mindfulness in relation to many psychological and

physical outcomes. In over 30 years of experimental research, mindfulness results in a

decrease in accidents, increase in creativity and memory, decline in stress, and an

increase in competence, just to name a handful of the benefits.

In one experimental study, Langer and Perlmuter (1988, as cited in Langer 1989)

investigated the effects of mindfulness intervention with nursing home patients. The first

(lowest mindful) group was asked to monitor and evaluate their daily activities for a

week. The second (low mindful) group was directed to monitor different behaviors each

day. The third (high mindful) group was asked to do the same as the second group but

also to list three alternatives they could have selected but did not for each behavior listed.

The final (highest mindful) group performed the same as the third group but also chose

which activities to monitor. At the end of the week, the investigators found that the more

mindful the participants were, the less depressed and the more confident, dependent,

alert, and differentiated in their choices they became.

Joss and Langer (1986, as described in Langer, Hatem, Joss, & Howell, 1989)

investigated the effects of mindfulness on creativity with undergraduate students using

three different conditions/groups. All three groups read a similar topic passage and were

given a preceding test measuring retention and creativity. However, the passage for each

group was written a little differently for each condition. The first group of students read a

passage written in absolute terms (mindless). The second group read a passage with

conditional (high mindful) terms such as “could be” or “possibly”. And the third group

57
read a passage written in absolute terms but introduced in a conditional (low mindful)

manner (e.g., “As one possible model…”). The investigators found that the students in

the mindless and low mindful groups were less creative in their responses and were

unaware when a case in the passage was fabricated in comparison to students in the high

mindful group.

In summary, regardless of whether one takes a meditative or a cognitive path

towards the journey of mindfulness, the destination is generally the same: an increase in

positive well-being, decrease in cognitive and emotional disturbance, and rise in

cognitive flexibility and awareness. However, another possible benefit of mindfulness,

which has yet to be extensively explored, is the reduction of racial prejudice and

discrimination.

Racial Mindfulness

Racial mindfulness is defined here as the awareness of and attention to internal

racial stimuli (e.g., racial prejudice) or racial external stimuli (e.g., racial group members

or discrimination) with open receptivity; or simply, mindfulness directed towards race.

Although research has yet to extensively investigate the relation of mindfulness with such

racial concepts as prejudice and discrimination, statements from scholars, results from

two published studies, and theoretical frames from the racial prejudice and mindfulness

literatures, provide support for such a connection.

58
 Advocates for Racial Mindfulness

Several scholars have advocated the possible benefits of a mindfulness mode of

processing in racial relations. According to Deborah Orr (2002), a leader in holistic

learning and anti-oppression, educators can utilize mindfulness practices to enhance the

efficacy of anti-oppressive pedagogy. She asserts that mindfulness has the potential to

address dualistic thinking and foster change both cognitively and affectively.

In the peace education literature, Leonard Riskin (2004), Director of the Center

for the Study of Dispute Resolution at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of

Law, stated that mindfulness could help peace negotiators in several ways. To wit:

“[Although mindfulness]…provides methods for calming the mind, concentrating,

experiencing compassion and empathy…mindfulness could help negotiators be more

aware of certain deep assumptions, involving those based on ethnicity or culture” (p.86).

In addition, Barbara Vacarr (2003) posited that mindfulness training may help

White teachers in developing the ability to respond with more empathy, less judgment,

and greater awareness of White privilege to tense diversity moments in the classroom. In

direct relation to prejudice, although not racial prejudice in particular, Hanh (1975)

suggested that mindfulness can effect an individual’s perception of reality, indirectly

freeing one from prejudice and stereotypes. Results from two published studies also

provide support for the relation between mindfulness and prejudice.

59
 Mindfulness and Prejudice Studies

Langer et al. (1985) hypothesized that if students were taught to be more mindful

or make more distinctions with people who have physical disabilities, students may be

more differentiated, less prejudiced, and see that abilities and disabilities are dependent

on context (e.g., “She may not be able to do X, but could do Y”) and not global

conditions (e.g., “She is disabled”). The researchers conducted the study with 47 sixth-

grade students during class time for five days (the fifth day was left for administering the

dependent measures). On two of the four days, half the students were shown slides of

people with unnoticeable physical disabilities. For the other two days, the other half of

students was presented with slides of people with noticeable physical disabilities.

Students in both the unnoticeable and noticeable groups were randomly split by

mindfulness treatment. Students in each group received identical looking booklets that

either allowed several different answers to one question (high mindfulness; e.g., “How

can this woman in the wheelchair drive a car?”) or allowed one answer for each question

(low mindfulness; e.g., “Can this woman in the wheelchair drive this car?”). This

approach resulted in a 2 (high mindfulness versus low mindfulness) x 2 (“unnoticeable”

versus “noticeable” people) factorial design.

As hypothesized, the researchers found that students in the high mindfulness

group who were shown slides of people with noticeable physical disabilities were more

likely to recognize context specific competencies of these individuals, were less

condescending, expressed less superficial preference, and were less likely to avoid these

individuals in hypothetical scenarios (e.g., were more likely to choose a blind person for

60
“pin the tail on the donkey” in comparison to low mindfulness groups who were more

likely to choose a person with unnoticeable physical disabilities). That is, teaching

children active distinction making (i.e., mindfulness) in this study reduced children’s

erroneous and indiscriminate prejudice against individuals with physical disabilities.

Langer & Moldoveanu (2000) later concluded that mindfulness could generalize

and help reduce racial prejudice and stereotyping:

When we do not stop drawing distinctions between people at some arbitrary point

(e.g., skin color or accent), and we keep on drawing distinctions (down to feeding

habits, music they listen to, or any of thousands of issues), then we may discover

that most stereotypes that we have formed are not rooted in fact, but in choice. (p.

6)

In relation to racial prejudice, only one published study to date has explored

mindfulness as a prejudice reduction intervention technique with conscious racial

attitudes. Lillis and Hayes (2007) explored two classroom approaches to increase racial

prejudice awareness among 32 college students: an educational lecture session designed

from a multicultural psychology textbook, and a session incorporating discussion and

experiential exercises based on a mindfulness technique – acceptance and commitment

training (ACT). The mindfulness session was designed to increase participant’s

awareness of racial prejudice, acceptance of those biases as a natural result of learning

and living in a prejudiced society, attention to the automaticity of evaluation and

judgment, and reinforcement of positive actions that are consistent with one’s egalitarian

values.

61
 Using a counterbalanced within-group design, results from pre- to post- and pre-

to follow-up indicate that the mindfulness session increased participants’ awareness and

acknowledgement of racial prejudice, acceptance and flexibility towards racial biases,

thought control and diffusion, and intentions of positive action. In comparison to the

standard prejudice awareness session, the mindfulness session influenced significantly

greater results on all outcomes. As a result, mindfulness not only helped participants’

racial consciousness, but also increased their acceptance towards racial biases and served

as a cognitive tool to possibly prevent future discrimination. A theoretical exploration of

how mindfulness could provide such benefits is discussed next.

Theoretical Exploration of Racial Mindfulness

Mindfulness directed towards race can reduce racial prejudice in three ways. First,

and similar to racial consciousness, racial mindfulness can increase one’s attention and

awareness of internal and external racial stimuli, in which the consciousness can motivate

individuals to reduce or regulate racial biases through a variety of meditating processes

(e.g., alleviating cognitive dissonance, de[re]categorizing social group membership,

experiencing empathy). Second, racial mindfulness can raise attention and awareness to

racial biases in an accepting and nonjudgmental fashion. This process could therefore

reduce self-invoked, negative emotions and their consequential effects, often experienced

from Whites when first coming to terms with racial biases. Finally, racial mindfulness

can decrease racial prejudice by reducing cognitive constraints for one to develop and

practice cognitive regulatory strategies, as well as providing two regulatory strategies

62
(meditation or active distinction making) that one can continue to use in the future and is

context independent.

Awareness and Attention

As previously defined, mindfulness is attention to and awareness of present events

and experiences with open receptivity (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Therefore, racial

mindfulness may influence Whites to become more aware of their conscious racial

prejudice, White privilege, and current racial discrimination of marginalized racial

groups. From racial mindfulness, for example, Whites may begin to realize that American

values are perhaps White values (Devos & Banaji, 2005) and an equal opportunity

America may not exist for a person of color.

Racial mindfulness may also help reduce subconscious racial attitudes.

Mindfulness has been described as the cognitive process of de-automatization, which can

influence an individual to consciously respond to situations rather than responding

subconsciously from habitual conditions (Deikman, 2000; Langer, 1989; Salomon &

Globerson, 1987). As a result, racial mindfulness could increase awareness of and

attention to one’s subconscious racial attitudes or the habitual activation of these

attitudes.

Similar to racial consciousness, racial mindfulness could reduce prejudice by

influencing motivational and mediating variables found to reduce racial attitudes.

Mindfulness has many benefits including awareness to internal and external stimuli,

creation of new or broader mental categories, connectedness with others, awareness of

multiple perspectives, empathy, and compassion for others (Baer, 2003; Langer, 1989,

63
2000; Miller, 1995; Miller & Nozawa, 2002; Shapiro et al., 1998). When applied to racial

biases, these mindfulness benefits appear similar to the motivational variables that can

reduce racial prejudice, discussed earlier in this section. That is, when applied to racial

stimuli, the mindfulness benefit of increased awareness could increase the opportunity of

experiencing cognitive dissonance with egalitarian beliefs or norms; the mindfulness

benefits of creating new or broader mental categories and connectedness with others

could help social re(de)categorizing racial group memberships (Lillis & Hayes, 2007);

and the mindfulness benefits of empathy and compassion for others seems directly related

to experiencing empathy towards racial outgroup members.

Acceptance

In addition to raising awareness to and attention of racial biases, and therefore,

influencing motivational processes found to decrease racial attitudes, racial mindfulness

can also affect one’s level of acceptance towards racial biases. Mindfulness brings

awareness of and attention to one’s thoughts, feelings, and other experiences in a

nonjudgmental fashion. Therefore, racial mindfulness can potentially prevent many of the

negative or unwanted emotions (e.g., guilt, compunction) evoked within individuals who

first become aware of racial biases that could cause avoidance to or even a rise in racial

prejudice.

For example, Emavardhana & Tori (1997) conducted an experimental study

investigating the effects of a seven-day mindfulness meditation intervention on

individuals’ self-esteem and ego defense mechanisms. The experimental group consisted

of two combined cohorts (n1=221, n2=216, combined mean age=18.27). The control was

64
recruited to match the demographics and social factors of the experimental group

(N=281, mean age=18.11). Pretest measures indicated no preliminary differences

between groups. Using multivariate statistics, and controlling for pre-test scores, the

researchers found that the mindfulness meditation treatment significantly increased

participant’s overall self-esteem and reduced subconscious ego defense mechanisms such

as displacement, projection, and regression.

Others have supported this result, indicating that the open receptivity aspect of

mindfulness attenuates cognitive or ego defensiveness (Hodgins & Knee, 2002), and

negative emotions, which can arise when one’s self-esteem or image is threatened

(Heppner et al., 2008). Therefore, racial mindfulness may decrease individuals’ (e.g.,

Whites’) ego-defensiveness and negative feelings that can arise when they become aware

of racial biases. This postulation is supported by Lillis and Hayes (2007) – the only

published study to date that has explored the effects of a racial mindfulness intervention –

where they found that racial mindfulness not only decreased participants’ racial prejudice

levels, but also increased their acceptance towards racial biases.

Cognitive Regulatory Strategies

Finally, racial mindfulness can reduce cognitive constraints for one to develop

and practice cognitive strategies to regulate racial biases, as well as provide two

regulatory strategies (i.e., meditation or active distinction making) that one can adopt.

Racial mindfulness can reduce cognitive constraints due to the de-categorical and de-

automatic nature of mindfulness.

65
 As previously mentioned, cognitive psychology indicates that mindful processing

entails drawing new categories or distinctions (Langer, 1989) or freeing oneself from

such categories (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Therefore, mindfulness directed towards race

may reduce the normative categorization process that has been theorized as the onset of

racial prejudice (Allport, 1954). In addition, mindfulness has been referred to as cognitive

de-automatization (Deikman, 2000; Langer, 1989), which is defined as “…the volitional,

metacognitively guided employment of non-automatic, usually effort demanding

processes” (Salomon & Globerson, 1987, p. 625). When mindful, an individual

experiences a shift away from automaticity, and more towards monitoring mental

processes (Deikman, 2000; Salomon & Globerson, 1987). Therefore, if mindfulness was

directed towards racial stimuli, the de-automatization process can reduce cognitive

constraints for one to develop and practice cognitive strategies to regulate racial biases.

For example, mindfulness may create more time for an individual to consciously decide

how to respond, rather than responding subconsciously and automatically to racial biases.

In addition, the two paths to increase mindfulness (i.e., meditation and actively

drawing distinctions) can serve as cognitive strategies that an individual can adopt to

regulate racial biases. One of the limitations of racial consciousness interventions is that

the effects are often dependent on the program or context (e.g., intergroup contact).

However, the paths of mindfulness (i.e., meditation and actively drawing distinctions) are

non-contextual practices that an individual can continually use to regulate racial biases.

In sum, research has yet to extensively investigate mindfulness with such racial

concepts as prejudice and discrimination. However, statements from scholars, results

66
from two published studies, and theoretical frames from the racial prejudice and

mindfulness literatures, provide justification for investigating the effects of racial

mindfulness.

Chapter Summary

Racial prejudice continues to permeate American society. As a response,

prejudice researchers suggest three general conditions are needed to decrease racial

attitudes: consciousness of, motivation to reduce, and cognitive strategies to regulate

one’s racial biases. However, most White Americans do not hold a high degree of racial

consciousness, and if increased, Whites may experience negative outcomes. Further, due

to the natural of prejudice, developing and practicing cognitive regulatory strategies is

cognitively taxing and difficult for many. Mindfulness directed towards race may provide

a solution to these limitations and reduce racial prejudice levels. However, racial

mindfulness has yet to be extensively investigated. The proposed research described in

the next chapter explores the effects of mindfulness on White students’ conscious and

subconscious racial prejudice, as well as their acceptance towards racial biases.

67
 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN

Within the last 40 years, great strides have been made in America in relation to

racial equality, yet inequalities continue to exist between Whites and people of color.

Based on reviews of literatures related to racial inequalities, discrimination, and

prejudice, I have illustrated that racial attitudes continue to affect our society today. From

exploring models of racial prejudice reduction and research on mindfulness, I have

argued that mindfulness directed towards racial stimuli, such as racial prejudice,

discrimination, or inequalities, may reduce racial attitudes and overcome limitations often

associated with current prejudice reduction models. The present research investigates the

extent to White college students’ degree of mindfulness can influence their degree of

racial prejudice directly and indirectly through motivational mediating variables, as well

their degree of acceptance towards racial biases.

Therefore, the research is guided by the following questions:

1. Does mindfulness influence White students’ conscious (subtle) and

subconscious racial prejudice towards Blacks:

a. directly by increasing awareness and attention to racial biases?

b. indirectly through motivational, mediating variables of social

recategorization and decategorization of racial group membership, and

empathy?

2. When increasing White students’ awareness of and attention to racial biases,

such as White privilege:

68
 a. does mindfulness attenuate the negative effects that can arise from

cognitive dissonance?

b. does mindfulness influence acceptance towards White privilege?

These research questions are answered using a mixed-method research design

consisting of two studies. The first research question is empirically investigated in Study

A, which gathers White participants’ degree of previous racial outgroup contact,

mindfulness, conscious (subtle) racial prejudice, subconscious racial prejudice, social

recategorization and decategorization of group membership, and empathy. Structural

equation modeling (SEM) is then used to explore the theoretical framework of whether

participants’ degree of mindfulness decreases their level of racial prejudices directly and

indirectly through motivational, mediating variables of social recategorization and

decategorization, and empathy, while controlling for previous racial outgroup contact.

The second research question is qualitatively explored in Study B by performing

content analysis on White participants’ written reactions to an article that describes White

privileged experiences. From the study’s theoretical framework, it is expected that

participants with a higher degree of mindfulness exhibit greater acceptance to racial

biases and less negative reactions resulting from cognitive dissonance.

69
 CHAPTER 5: STUDY A

Study A explored if mindfulness influences White students’ conscious (subtle)

and subconscious racial prejudice towards Blacks using SEM. I considered using an

experimental design, which would consist of creating and exploring the effects of a racial

mindfulness intervention, in contrast to structural modeling. However, due to the limited

amount of research on racial mindfulness, I decided that a strong theoretical and

empirical exploration of mindfulness on racial biases should be first accomplished before

time and efforts are directed in creating a racial mindfulness intervention.

Method

Participants

The study consisted of 341 undergraduate college students selected from the

Department of Educational Psychology subject pool at The University of Texas at Austin

using a stratified random sampling procedure. Two strata were used for selection: (a)

students who racially identify as White, and (b) a balance of students who self-identify as

male (n=164, 48%) and female (n=177, 52%). Participants consisted of first-year (n=17,

5%), second-year (n=38, 11%), third-year (n=102, 30%), fourth-year (n=150, 44%), fifth-

year (seniors; n=24, 7%), and graduate level students (n=10, 3%). Of the 327 participants

who provided the optional department name of their major or degree, the responses show

a wide representation ranging from the Business school to “Undeclared,” with Liberal

Arts (n=98, 30%), Communication (n=65, 20%), and Business (n=55, 16%)

colleges/schools as the most frequent.

70
 Procedure

Students were randomly and equally selected into four different groups (Group A,

B, C, and D). All groups received an introductory message of the study via email that

included a SurveyMonkey Web address where electronic measures of the study can be

accessed. The Web addresses in the email message, however, were different for each

group, as the ordering of the electronic measures varied by group membership due to

counterbalancing purposes; this ordering/counterbalancing process is explained in further

detail shortly.

Once at the SurveyMonkey Web site, all groups first observed a consent form

explaining the potential risks and benefits of participation with limited knowledge about

the intention of the study in order to prevent participant bias, and the possibility of being

randomly selected for a follow-up (Study B). One risk for participation was subject

identification. The departmental subject pool requires students to provide their University

of Texas electronic identification number (UTEID) in order to receive research credit. To

reduce this risk, the consent form informed students that their number will be used for

this research credit purpose only and how identification will be protected (i.e., each

UTEID will be given a random 5-digit number, only the 5-digit number will be connected

to responses, a separate list connecting UTEIDs with random 5-digit numbers will be

password protected and accessed by the primary researcher only, and each entry on this

list will be destroyed once research credit was given).

71
 After agreeing to participate and entering their UTEID, all groups then responded

to a set of demographic items, a qualifying item for participation in the follow-up study,

and the following scales: (a) previous racial outgroup contact, (b) mindfulness, (c)

empathy, and (d) social re(de)categorization measures, which are described in the next

section.

Following these four measures, Group A and Group B completed a subconscious

prejudice measure, ensued by a conscious (subtle) prejudice measure. Group C and

Group D, on the other hand, completed the conscious (subtle) prejudice scale first and

then the subconscious measure. Within each of these pairings for the subconscious

measure, one of the groups (e.g., Group A and Group C) receives a chronological block

order of the measure where the other group (e.g., Group B and Group D) receives a

reversed (counterbalanced) block order (this measure and block orders are described in

detail in the next section). Table 2 depicts an overview of the measurement

administration for this study.

Table 2
Administration Order of Measures
Order Measures (All Groups)

First Previous exposure scale

Second Mindfulness scale

Third Empathy scale

Fourth Social re(de)categorization scale

(Group A) (Group B) (Group C) (Group D)

Subconscious scale: Subconscious scale: Conscious (subtle) Conscious (subtle)

Fifth
chronological order reverse order scale scale

Conscious (subtle) Conscious (subtle) Subconscious scale: Subconscious scale:

Sixth
scale scale chronological order reverse order

72
 Measures

Previous Racial Outgroup Contact

Because of the indirect and direct effects of racial intergroup contact on racial

prejudice, data on this variable was important to collect and later to control across

participants in this study. A 7-item scale adapted from Chang (20023; see Appendix A)

collected participants’ degree of previous racial outgroup contact. With these items,

participants identified on a 5-point Likert scale (1= “0-20%” to 5 = “81-100%”) the

percentage of people who were/are White in each of the following groups: high school

classmates, the neighborhood where they grew up, current close friends, current

neighbors, immediate and non-immediate family members, and romantic partners. All

item responses are reverse scored so a high total score indicates a high degree of previous

racial outgroup contact.

Mindfulness

The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006; see

Appendix B) collected participants’ current level of dispositional and general

mindfulness. The FFMQ is designed to measure five facets of mindfulness, as well as an

overall factor. The five facets are: observing, describing, acting with awareness,

nonjudging of inner experience, and non-reactivity to inner experience. However,

responses on the observing facet were initially excluded in this study, as Baer et al.

(2006) found that this facet failed to fit the hierarchical mindfulness model with their

study participants. Investigating the difference between a four-facet (excluding the

3
There were no reliability or validity data reported for scores on this scale in Chang (2002).
73
observing facet) and a five-facet hierarchical model occurred during the model

comparison, data analysis stage, described in the next section.

The full scale consists of 39-items (31-items minus the observe subscale) on a 5-

point Likert scale (1 = “Never or very rarely true”, 5 = “Very often or always true”),

where a combined higher score reflects a higher degree of overall mindfulness. Sample

items include “When I’m walking, I deliberately notice the sensations of my body

moving (observing); I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings (describing);

When I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted (acting with

awareness); I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions

(nonjudging);” and “I perceive my feelings and emotions without having to react to them

(non-reacting).” The FFMQ has sound psychometric properties, and scores on the scale

have been found to be valid and reliable with college student samples. For instance,

internally consistency was .75 to .91 for scores determining the five facets of mindfulness

with a college student sample (N=613; Baer et al., 2006).

Empathy

Three subscales from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980;

Appendix C) collected participants’ current level of empathy. The IRI is designed to

measure four aspects of empathy: empathetic concern, perspective taking, fantasy, and

personal distress (reverse coded) – as well as an overall empathy factor (Bäckström &

Björklund, 2007; Cliffordson, 2002). In this study, participants took only the empathetic

concern, perspective-taking, and personal distress subscales, consisting of 21 total items

on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “Does not describe me well” to 5 = “Describes me very

74
well”). The fantasy subscale, which measures the tendency to identify with fictional

characters in movies and other situations, was not included in this study, as it was not

deemed necessary. Sample items of the three subscales include: “I would describe myself

as a pretty soft-hearted person (empathetic concern); I try to look at everybody's side of a

disagreement before I make a decision (perspective-taking);” and “In emergency

situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease (personal distress).” A combined higher

score reflects a higher degree of overall empathy.

The IRI is widely used for an empathy measure and has been found negatively

related to conscious (subtle) racial prejudice (Bäckström & Björklund, 2007). Scores on

the IRI have been found valid and consistent internally and over time with college student

samples (e.g., α=.72 for empathetic concern, α=.78 for perspective-taking, and α=.78 for

personal distress subscales, Davis [N=579]; and α=.82 for a hierarchical empathy factor,

Bäckström & Björklund [N=456]).

Social Re(De)Categorization

A Social Re(De)categorization Scale collected participants’ current level of social

recategorization and decategorization levels of group membership. The 9-item scale was

adapted from Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, and Anastasio (1994), which appears to

be the only published study with a scale or items attempting to measure such constructs4.

In this prior study, the researchers used four intergroup contact items to assess students’

perceptions of social categorization of the student body on campus. Two items assessed

4
Gaertner et al. (1994) developed four items from modifying the four highest loading items of the equal
status factor of the School Interracial Climate Scale derived from the development and validation study of
this scale (Green, Adams, & Turner, 1988).
75
social decategorization (i.e., “At school, it usually feels as though we belong to different

groups [reverse scored]; At school, it usually feels as though we are individuals and not

members of a particular group”), and the other two items were designed to measure

students’ social recategorization of students on campus (i.e., “Despite the different groups

at school, there is frequently the sense that we are all just one group; Although there are

different groups of students at this school, it feels as though we are all playing on the

same team”). Incorporating modifications of these items and using them as a guide, five

additional items were created, each with a 5-point Likert response scale (1= “Strongly

Disagree” to 5 = “Strongly Agree”).

The total 9-item, projected 2-factor, scale was then explored with a pilot study

sample to determine factor structure and reliability of scores (Appendix D). The results

indicated a 6-item, 2-factor scale. However, the reliability of scores on the Social

Decategorization subscale, as well as the pattern and structure coefficients of two of the

subscale items, were not as high as expected. Therefore, two items that were projected to

measure social decategorization but dropped during the factor analysis procedure in the

pilot study were modified and investigated here with Study A participants. In addition,

the one dropped item projected to measure social recategorization was also modified and

explored (in an attempt to create an over-identified measurement model during the next

stage of data analysis). Therefore, participants in this study completed a 9-item scale that

consisted of the validated six items and three modified items from the pilot study results

(Appendix E). Higher scores on these subscales indicate a higher degree of social

recategorization and decategorization of student groups on campus.

76
Conscious (Subtle) Racial Prejudice

The Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale (SR2K; Henry & Sears, 2002) collected

participants’ current level of conscious (subtle) racial prejudice. The SR2K scale is an 8-

item measure with both Likert and non-Likert response scales (see Appendix F), where a

combined higher score indicates a higher degree of conscious (subtle) prejudice. An

example item is as follows: “Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame

prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same.” The SR2K has

predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity, as well as generalizability to college

students, adults, and other racial groups besides Whites. Scores on the scale have been

found to be adequately reliable (e.g., internal consistency was .79, N=702; Henry &

Sears).

Subconscious Racial Prejudice

The Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998) collected

participants’ current level of subconscious prejudice. The IAT has quickly become the

most widely used subconscious measure in psychology (Fazio & Olson 2003; Quillian,

2006) with over 200 research papers on subconscious attitudes of all sorts (e.g., religion,

weight, age; see http://projectimplicit.net/nosek/iat/). Scores on the IAT have been found

to have predictive validity (to conscious prejudice scales) and convergent/discriminant

validity (see Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2007), as well as adequate reliability (e.g.,

alphas for internally consistency ranged from .7 to .9; Greenwald & Nosek, 2001).

The IAT is designed to measure the differential automatic associations of two

target concepts (e.g., "Blacks" versus "Whites") with positive versus negative evaluations

77
(e.g., "pleasant words" versus "unpleasant words"), in a seven-block sequence (some of

the blocks are used for practice to acquaint participants with the IAT). A participant

taking the computerized IAT learns to use two keys, one on the left and one on the right,

to quickly respond to stimuli on the computer screen.

For example, in Block 1, a participant learns to press the left-key each time a

White face appears, and the right-key each time a Black face appears (see Table 3). Then

in Block 2, the participant learns to respond with the same two keys to pleasant words

such as “wonderful” (left-key) and unpleasant words such as “horrible” (right-key). In

Blocks 3 and 4, both target faces and evaluation words are presented in a random

sequence, and the participant is still asked to perform the responses previously learned

(e.g., White faces and pleasant words = left-key). In Block 5, the initial assignment of

keys to target concepts is reversed, so that the left- key is now assigned to Black faces

and the right-key assigned to White faces. Finally, in Blocks 6 and 7, target faces and

evaluation words are again presented in a random sequence, but now with the reversed

assignment from Block 5 (e.g., White faces and unpleasant words = left-key).

Table 3
Block Sequences of the IAT
Block Trials Left-key response Right key response
B1 20 White face Black face
B2 20 Pleasant words Unpleasant words
B3 20 White face + Pleasant words Black face + Unpleasant words
B4 40 White face + Pleasant words Black face + Unpleasant words
B5 40 Black Face White face
B6 20 Black face + Pleasant words White face + Unpleasant words
B7 40 Black face + Pleasant words White face + Unpleasant words

78
 A comparison of average latency between Blocks 3 and 4, and Blocks 6 and 7 are

the critical stages to reveal the association strengths between faces and attributes.

Participants who possess stronger and positive associations with Whites compared to

Blacks will have a faster response time (and less errors) in Blocks 3 and 4 than Blocks 6

and 7. In most studies, half the sample completes the task in the above chronological

block order, and the other half competes the task with a counterbalanced block order of 5,

2, 6, 7, 1, 3, and 4. The entire procedure takes around five minutes.

Greenwald, Nosek and Banaji (2003) have recommended a following algorithm to

tally an individual’s IAT score (summarized in Nosek et al., 2007):

(1) Use data from Blocks 3, 4, 6, and 7; (2) eliminate trials with latencies >

10,000 ms; (3) eliminate subjects whom more than 10% of trials have latencies <

300 ms; (4) compute one standard deviation for all trials in Blocks 3 and 6, and

another standard deviation for all trials in Blocks 4 and 7; (5) compute means for

trials in each of the four blocks (3, 4, 6, 7); (6) compute two difference scores

(one between Blocks 3 and 6 and the other between Blocks 4 and 7) subtracting

what is intended to represent the high (positive) end of the measure from the

block containing associations representing the low end (7) divide each difference

score by its associates standard deviation from Step 4; and (8) average the two

quotients from Step 7 (p. 12).

From this procedure, the IAT score (a D score) ranges from -2 to +2. Break points for

scores include .15 (slight prejudice), .35 (moderate prejudice), and .65 or above (strong

prejudice). A higher positive score indicates a higher degree of subconscious racial

79
prejudice towards Blacks and a higher negative score indicates a greater degree of

subconscious racial prejudice towards Whites.

Data Analysis

First, I ran diagnostics using the SPSS program to determine that the assumptions

of SEM have been met and to explore scale reliability. Following, using maximum-

likelihood estimation via the Amos program, I employed latent variable SEM to examine

the direct and indirect effects of mindfulness on racial prejudice, while controlling for

previous racial outgroup contact.

Model Development

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on participants’ scores on a majority

of measures to help create the initial measurement model. Following, the initial

structural model was specified. Finally, competing a priori models were compared to the

initial structural equation model.

For the initial measurement model, presented in Figure 2, observed variables were

obtained from (a) the total score for subconscious prejudice, (b) scale items for social

recategorization and decategorization, and (c) item-to-construct parceling of the other,

multi-item measures. It was necessary to item parcel in order to reduce the number of

parameters estimated in the structural model. In addition, because the purpose of the

study is to explore the relations between latent variables and not the relations among

items comprising the measured variables, parceling was warranted (Little, Cunningham,

Shahar, & Widaman, 2002).

80
Figure 2. Initial measurement model with observed variables and latent factors.

Note: M= Mindfulness, PRC = Prior Racial Outgroup Contact, SRC = Social Recategorization, SDC =
Social Decategorization, CP = Conscious (Subtle) Prejudice, SP = Subconscious Prejudice, E = Empathy,
and P = Item Parcels

With item parceling of unidimensional measures (i.e., previous racial outgroup

contact and conscious [subtle] prejudice measures), parcels were established for each

scale by first fitting a factor solution to each set of items and then averaging the items

with the highest and lowest coefficients to form the first indicator, averaging the items

with the next highest and lowest coefficients to form the second indicator, and so on. For

multi-dimensional measures (i.e., mindfulness and empathy subscales), parcels were

created following a domain-representative approach (Little et al., 2002). Using this

approach, responses were first fitted to a factor solution for each set of subscale items.

81
Following, the subscale items with the highest coefficients were averaged together to

form the first parcel (e.g., items with the highest coefficients for IRI subscales of

empathetic concern, perspective taking, and personal distress were averaged together),

subscale items with the second highest coefficients were averaged together, subscale

items with the lowest coefficients were averaged together, and then subscale items with

the second lowest coefficients were averaged. Therefore, the four parcels for each

multidimensional measure reflect all of the dimensions present within the set of items.

For the initial structural model, findings from prior research (discussed in chapter

3) were first included in the model. Empathy (Stephan & Finlay, 1999), social

recategorization (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), and

decategorization (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005) have been found to directly reduce racial

prejudice levels. In addition, prior racial outgroup contact has been found to directly

decrease participant’s conscious (subtle) prejudice and subconscious prejudice levels; this

variable has also been found to increase participants’ empathy and social categorization

levels, which indirectly explains some of the effect racial outgroup contact has on one’s

prejudice (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003). In terms of mindfulness, prior

researchers have shown that this variable can increase empathy (Shapiro et al., 1998) and

interconnectedness (Miller, 1995; i.e., social categorization) as well.

After these prior research findings were included, predicted paths were then

drawn in the structural model. First, mindfulness was hypothesized to initially occur

before and therefore, affect prejudice (and not the other way around), which can be

explained by the mere definition of mindfulness. According to cognitive psychology

82
theorists (e.g., Brown et al., 2007; Langer, 1989), mindfulness is a mode of cognitive

processing that involves attention of and awareness to stimuli before the overlay of

discriminative, categorical, and habitual reactions. Therefore, mindfulness generally

appears to have time precedence over (occurs before) inflexible, categorical, and

automatic cognitive processes (i.e., racial prejudice), at least initially. Second, because

mindfulness has been found to increase empathy and interconnectedness (or social

re[de]categorization), and these variables, on their own, have been found to decrease

racial prejudice levels, mindfulness was hypothesized to decrease racial prejudice levels

indirectly. Third, mindfulness was theorized to reduce racial prejudice levels directly

based from the following: (a) statements from scholars postulating the effect of

mindfulness on racial prejudice (e.g., Orr, 2002); (b) results from two published studies

(Langer et al., 1985; Lillis & Hayes, 2007); (c) the finding that mindfulness increases two

(meditating) variables (empathy and interconnectedness) that have been found to

decrease racial prejudice levels; and (d) how mindfulness can influence other variables

that have been found to decrease racial prejudice, such as an increase in one’s awareness

and attention to stimuli with open receptivity (e.g., acceptance to cognitive dissonance;

Brown & Ryan, 2003), a reduction in cognitive automaticity, and an increase in mental

monitoring (Deikman, 2000; Salomon & Globerson, 1987).

Therefore, it was theorized in the structural model that mindfulness cognitively

and generally occurs before racial prejudice development, and can decrease racial

prejudice levels both indirectly and directly. Figure 3 depicts this initial structural model

with supported and predicted paths.

83
Figure 3. Initial structural model with supported and predicted effects. Based from prior research, red
arrows indicate a path of increase and black arrows indicate a path of decrease. Blue arrows indicate
predicted paths of decrease. For ease of presentation, the measurement model is excluded.

Note: M= Mindfulness, PRC = Prior Racial Outgroup Contact, SRC = Social Recategorization, SDC =
Social Decategorization, CP = Conscious (Subtle) Prejudice, SP = Subconscious Prejudice, and E =
Empathy.

Model Comparison

After this initial model was constructed, competing a priori models were

compared to determine the best fitting model. Once the best fitting model was selected,

the following goodness of fit indices were used to determine model fit: chi-square

statistic (χ2), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), root mean

square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual

84
(SRMR). For the GFI and CFI, values above .90 indicated an adequate fit and values

above .95 indicated a good fit to the data (Keith, 2006). Values below .05 for RMSEA

and .08 for SRMR indices indicated a good fitting model to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1998,

1999). Values of the RMSEA served as the primary focus of model fit, as this index is

designed to assess the approximate fit of a model and therefore, suggested as a more

reasonable standard than other indices for model evaluation (Keith).

To compare rival nested models, the chi-square difference test or change in chi-

square (Δχ2; Keith, 2006) was used to determine the best fitting and most parsimonious

model. A statistically significant change in chi-square suggests that the more constrained

model should be rejected. In addition, because the chi-square can be sensitive to sample

size (Keith), the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion

(BIC) were also investigated. To compare competing non-nested models, the AIC and

BIC were used. Models with lower AIC and BIC values were preferred.

Two competing measurement models were specified and compared to the initial

measurement model of this study. The first competing model consists of incorporating

the Social Re(De)categorization items that were modified during a pilot study with this

scale. Therefore in this alternative model, the Social Recategorization factor has four

indicators (three validated items plus one modified item) and the Social Decategorization

factor consists of five indicators (three validated items plus two modified items). The

second measurement model consists of including the observing facet from the

mindfulness measure. Therefore, item parcels for the hierarchical mindfulness factor

include indicators from the observing subscale.

85
 After the best fitting measurement model was determined, three competing a

priori structural models were specified and compared to the initial structural model of this

study. The first competing structural model explored the correlation between social

recategorization and social decategorization factors, as this was predicted during scale

development and validation for the Social Re(De)categorization Scale.

The second competing model investigated a correlation between the residuals of

conscious (subtle) and subconscious racial prejudice. Most studies investigating the

relation between these two attitudes find correlations below 0.2 (Fazio & Olson, 2003).

However, some studies have found a larger and significant correlation (e.g., Kawakami,

Dion, & Dovidio, 1998; McConnell & Liebold, 2001). Therefore, the first competing

model included a correlation of the conscious (subtle) and subconscious measures within

the initial structural model.

In the final competing model, direct effects/paths of mindfulness on conscious

(subtle) and subconscious prejudice were excluded. Because this study is not measuring

or influencing students’ racial mindfulness specifically (only general mindfulness), the

effects of mindfulness on racial prejudice may be majority (rather than partially)

explained by the mediating variables of social recategorization, social decategorization,

and empathy. In other words, expecting an individual’s level of awareness of and

attention to general stimuli with open receptivity (mindfulness) to include a direct focus

on racial stimuli (racial mindfulness) may be too distal. However, the effects of

mindfulness on variables of interconnectedness and empathy have been supported and

86
appear similar to the variables of social recategorization, social decategorization, and

empathy that have been found to decrease racial prejudice levels.

Results

I first investigated participants’ responses to measures, which included exploring

data assumptions and conducting reliability analyses of scores on scales and subscales.

Following, I developed and compared the measurement and structural models against

alternative a priori models. Finally, using the best fitting structural equation model, I

explored the indirect and direct effects of mindfulness on racial prejudice, as well as

other effects.

Data Assumptions and Internal Consistency

Exploring participant responses to ensure SEM data assumptions were met

resulted in the following findings. One item from the Prior Racial Outgroup Contact

Scale (i.e., Item 5: percentage of immediate family members that were White) was not

normally distributed and therefore, dropped from further data analysis. In addition, there

were 10 participants who had more than 10% of their IAT trials with latencies under 300

milliseconds, which could reflect guesswork. Therefore, these cases were eliminated,

which reduced the total sample size to 331 subjects. Besides these two cases, all other

data assumptions were satisfied. Scale reliability was then assessed via estimates of the

internal consistency of scores for each unidimensional and multidimensional measure.

Correlations, means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for each

scale and subscale are presented in Table 4. The means suggest that participants, on

87
average, have limited previous racial outgroup contact, low conscious (subtle) prejudice,

but moderate subconscious prejudice towards Blacks.

88
Table 4
Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Alphas among Total Scales and Subscales
Scale PRC SRC1 SRC SDC2 SDC M3 M M_O M_D M_A M_NJ M_NR E E_PT E_EC E_PD CP SP
PRC 1.00
SRC1 .07 1.00
SRC .10 .94** 1.00
SDC2 .07 .31** .39** 1.00
SDC .05 .32** .41** .94** 1.00
M3 -.15** .01 .07 .20** .22** 1.00
M -.14* .04 .10 .25** .27** .95** 1.00
M_O .01 .09 .11* .19** .22** .02 .32** 1.00
M_D -.09 .01 .08 .17** .18** .68** .68** .12* 1.00
M_A -.10 -.01 .02 .13* .12* .71** .68** .00 .30** 1.00
M_NJ -.12* .01 .06 .10 .13* .76** .66** -.20** .28** .43** 1.00
M_NR -.11 .01 .04 .15** .17** .56** .57** .15** .21** .14* .36** 1.00
E .10 .20** .26** .21** .21** -.05 .00 .17** .04 -.05 -.02 -.15** 1.00
E_PT .04 .21** .30** .30** .31** .20** .25** .20** .16** .12* .15** .12* .73** 1.00
E_EC .07 .17** .25** .19** .20** .03 .08 .16** .10 .02 .04 -.11 .83** .48** 1.00
E_PD .11* -.02 -.08 -.14** -.16** -.43** -.42** -.05 -.25** -.30** -.29** -.36** .38** -.15** .08 1.00
CP -.24** -.08 -.10 -.12* -.10 .12* .11* -.02 .08 .07 .10 .07 -.17** -.09 -.11* -.14** 1.00
SP .01 -.03 -.03 -.11* -.09 .04 .03 -.02 .01 -.01 .09 .04 .00 -.02 -.05 .08 0.10 1.00
Mean 1.85 3.26 3.33 3.27 3.26 3.34 3.31 3.19 3.49 3.31 3.47 3.12 3.35 3.59 3.81 2.64 2.27 .49
SD .76 .74 .66 .72 .49 .44 .37 .56 .67 .66 .75 .51 .39 .62 .63 .49 .51 .35
α .81 .67 .64 .66 .45 .89 .86 .71 .89 .87 .9 .73 .81 .8 .81 .79 .79 .81
Note: PRC = Prior Racial Outgroup Contact, SRC = Social Recategorization, SDC = Social Decategorization, M= Mindfulness, M_O = Observe facet, M_D =
Describe facet, M_A= Act with Awareness facet, M_NJ = Nonjudge facet, M_NR = Non-React facet, E = Empathy, E_PT = Perspective-Taking E_EC =
Empathetic Concern, E_PD = Personal Distress, CP = Conscious (Subtle) Prejudice, and SP = Subconscious Prejudice
1
Values represent only SRC items 3, 5, and 8.
2
Values represent only SDC items 4, 6, 9.
3
Values represent all mindfulness items except observing subscale items.
* p<.05; **p<.01

89
 Model Development and Model Comparison

Measurement Model

As previously mentioned, the initial measurement model consisted of the total

observed score for the subconscious prejudice measure, subscale items for the social

recategorization and decategorization measure, and item-to-construct parceling of the

other, multi-item measures. Item parceling of unidimensional measures (i.e., previous

racial outgroup contact and conscious [subtle] prejudice measures), parcels were

established for each scale by first fitting a factor solution to each set of items using

exploratory factor analysis and then averaging the items with the highest and lowest

coefficients to form the first indicator, averaging the items with the next highest and

lowest coefficients to form the second indicator, and so on. Table 5 depicts the factor

structure of these unidimensional measures and how each parcel was created.

Table 5
Exploratory Factor Analysis Results and Item-to-Construct Parceling of Unidimensional Measures
Factor/Item Eigenvalue Variance Coefficients Item Parcels

PRC 3.12 51.96%

PRC Item 1 .488 PRC Parcel 1
PRC Item 2 .654 PRC Parcel 3
PRC Item 3 .863 PRC Parcel 1
PRC Item 4 .495 PRC Parcel 2
PRC Item 6 .560 PRC Parcel 3
PRC Item 7 .782 PRC Parcel 2

CP 3.24 40.46%
SR2K Item 1 .734 CP Parcel 1
SR2K Item 2 .612 CP Parcel 3
SR2K Item 3 .324 CP Parcel 1
SR2K Item 4 .588 CP Parcel 4
SR2K Item 5 .469 CP Parcel 2
SR2K Item 6 .557 CP Parcel 4
SR2K Item 7 .627 CP Parcel 2
SR2K Item 8 .552 CP Parcel 3

Note: PRC = Prior Racial Outgroup Contact Scale, CP = Conscious (Subtle) Prejudice, and SR2K =
Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale.
90
 For multi-dimensional measures (i.e., mindfulness and empathy subscales),

parcels were created following a domain-representative approach (Little et al., 2002).

Using this approach, responses were first fitted to a factor solution for each set of

subscale items. Next, because subscales of these measures consist of multiple items,

items with pattern and structural coefficients below .40 were deleted. Following, the

subscale items with the highest coefficients were averaged together to form the first

parcel, subscale items with the second highest coefficients were averaged together,

subscale items with the lowest coefficients were averaged together, and then subscale

items with the second lowest coefficients were averaged. Table 6 and 7, respectively,

presents the factor structure of the mindfulness and empathy measures used in this study

and how each parcel was created.

Created item parcels were then investigated and data assumptions from the

individual item analysis remained satisfied. The initial measurement model was then

developed, as well as competing models. Correlations, means, and standard deviations

for the observed variables used in the initial model are presented in Table 8.

91
Table 6
Exploratory Factor Analysis Results and Item-to-Construct Parceling of the Mindfulness Measure
Pattern Structure
Factor/Item Eigenvalue Variance Item Parcels
Coefficients Coefficients

NJ 7.83 23.73%
FFMQ Item 3 .650 .667 M Parcel 4
FFMQ Item 10 .633 .666 M Parcel 3
FFMQ Item 14 .717 .765
FFMQ Item 17 .715 .683
FFMQ Item 25 .779 .811 M Parcel 2
FFMQ Item 30 .827 .825 M Parcel 1
FFMQ Item 35 .686 .711
FFMQ Item 39 .672 .688

D 3.86 11.71%
FFMQ Item 2 .762 .761 M Parcel 1
FFMQ Item 7 .733 .735
FFMQ Item 12 .714 .745
FFMQ Item 16 .700 .729
FFMQ Item 22 .509 .591 M Parcel 4
FFMQ Item 27 .657 .649
FFMQ Item 32 .631 .636 M Parcel 3
FFMQ Item 37 .750 .765 M Parcel 2

A 2.81 8.51%
FFMQ Item 5 .765 .712 M Parcel 2
FFMQ Item 8 .705 .743
FFMQ Item 13 .807 .788 M Parcel 1
FFMQ Item 18 .580 .672
FFMQ Item 23 .519 .591 M Parcel 3
FFMQ Item 28 .597 .657
FFMQ Item 34 .535 .586 M Parcel 4
FFMQ Item 38 .684 .715

NR 2.46 7.47%
FFMQ Item 19 . 542 .560
FFMQ Item 21 .427 .457 M Parcel 3
FFMQ Item 24 .596 .603 M Parcel 2
FFMQ Item 29 .738 .723 M Parcel 1
FFMQ Item 33 .497 .506 M Parcel 4

O1 1.85 5.62%
FFMQ Item 15 .561 .598 M Parcel 1
FFMQ Item 20 .537 .556 M Parcel 2
FFMQ Item 26 .499 .519 M Parcel 4
FFMQ Item 31 .481 .506 M Parcel 3

Note: NJ = Nonjudge, D = Describe, A= Act with Awareness, NR = Non-React, O = Observe, FFMQ =

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, and M = Mindfulness
1
These observe subscale items are excluded from the item-to-construct parceling process for the initial
measurement model and included as a competing model during model comparison analysis.

92
Table 7
Exploratory Factor Analysis Results and Item-to-Construct Parceling of the Empathy Measure
Pattern Structure
Factor/Item Eigenvalue Variance Item Parcels
Coefficients Coefficients

EC 4.89 25.71%
IRI Item 1 .702 .730 E Parcel 2
IRI Item 3 .458 .421 E Parcel 3
IRI Item 6 .475 .512 E Parcel 4
IRI Item 10 .755 .728 E Parcel 1
IRI Item 13 .593 .661
IRI Item 15 .646 .704
IRI Item 17 .512 .598

PD 3.25 17.10% .
IRI Item 4 .624 .623
IRI Item 7 .495 .512 E Parcel 3
IRI Item 12 .606 .601 E Parcel 4
IRI Item 14 .631 .646
IRI Item 18 .817 .812 E Parcel 1
IRI Item 20 .662 .649 E Parcel 2

PT 1.62 8.52%
IRI Item 2 .404 .529 E Parcel 3
IRI Item 5 .570 .595 E Parcel 4
IRI Item 8 .580 .645
IRI Item 16 .605 .659
IRI Item 19 .799 .723 E Parcel 1
IRI Item 21 .669 .662 E Parcel 2

Note: EC = Empathetic Concern, PD = Personal Distress, PT = Perspective-Taking, IRI = Interpersonal

Reactivity Index, and E = Empathy

93
Table 8
Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Measured Variables in the Initial Measurement Model
PRC PRC PRC SRC SRC SRC SDC SDC SDC M M M M E E E E CP CP CP CP
Variable SP
_P1 _P2 _P3 _3 _5 _8 _4 _6 _9 _P1 _P2 _P3 _P4 _P1 _P2 _P3 _P4 _P1 _P2 _P3 _P4

PRC_P1 1.00
PRC_P2 .65** 1.00
PRC_P3 .64** .60** 1.00
SRC_3 .06 .13* .02 1.00
SRC_5 -.05 .01 -.08 .57** 1.00
SRC_8 .11* .12* .09 .28** .35** 1.00
SDC_4 .10 .07 .08 .15** .21** .10 1.00
SDC_6 -.01 .00 -.02 .18** .12* .06 .35** 1.00
SDC_9 .09 .08 .03 .29** .32** .27** .50** .33** 1.00
M_P1 -.09 -.12* -.14** -.03 -.02 -.03 .13* .11 .07 1.00
-
M_P2 .15** -.14** -.16** .02 .05 .01 .15** .09 .13* .71** 1.00
M_P3 -.10 -.05 -.14** .10 .05 .06 .22** .15** .20** .56** .59** 1.00
-
M_P4 .13** -.16** -.09 -.02 -.02 -.09 .13* .08 .04 .56** .55** .56** 1.00
E_P1 .04 .05 .04 .02 .02 .01 .03 -.15** .03 -.08 -.02 .02 .07 1.00
E_P2 .01 .04 -.02 -.01 .09 .05 .11* -.02 .10 .04 .10 .14** .03 .46** 1.00
E_P3 -.06 -.04 -.09 -.08 -.11* -.02 .03 .05 -.01 .21** .25** .19** .20** .15** .13* 1.00
E_P4 -.07 -.04 -.04 .04 .03 -.02 -.03 -.03 -.02 .10 .18** .12* .13* .18** .19** .25** 1.00
-
CP_P1 .21** -.15** -.10 -.06 -.12* -.07 -.16** -.14** -.18** .10 .07 .03 .11 -.05 -.02 .06 .18** 1.00
-
CP_P2 .16** -.18** -.14** .00 .00 -.01 .00 .04 -.03 .09 .09 .07 .18** -.03 .01 .12* .16** .45** 1.00
-
CP_P3 .15** -.18** -.15** -.06 -.08 -.13* -.10 .02 -.16** .05 .05 .01 .11* -.04 -.05 .04 .13* .59** .41** 1.00
-
CP_P4 .16** -.22** -.18** .00 -.01 -.04 -.05 -.07 -.10 .08 .10 .06 .13* .01 .00 .15** .11* .52** .63** .42** 1.00
SP -.01 .05 -.01 .03 -.03 -.06 -.07 -.12* -.06 .07 .03 .02 .06 -.07 -.08 -.08 -.02 .17** .06 .01 .08 1.00
Mean 2.03 1.85 1.68 3.25 3.36 3.16 3.22 2.99 3.59 3.32 3.11 3.36 3.25 3.45 3.47 3.03 2.98 2.05 2.42 2.33 2.28 .49
SD .86 .85 .92 .98 .93 .95 1.05 .86 .85 .54 .55 .53 .52 .49 .47 .48 .55 .59 .67 .69 .62 .35
Note: PRC = Prior Racial Outgroup Contact, SRC = Social Recategorization, SDC = Social Decategorization, M= Mindfulness, E = Empathy, CP = Conscious
(Subtle) Prejudice, SP = Subconscious Prejudice, and P = Item Parcels.
* p<.05; **p<.01

94
 The initial measurement model was then compared to two competing models to

determine the best fitting a priori model. The first competing model was nested with the

initial model and included additional Social Re(De)categorization Scale items that were

modified in a prior pilot study. The second alternative model was non-nested with the

initial model and consisted of the inclusion of the Observe FFMQ subscale during

mindfulness item-to-construct parceling. Model fit indices explored across the three a

priori models were the change in chi-square (for the nested model only), AIC, BIC, and

the RMSEA – to provide an idea of within model fit. Table 9 presents the comparative

analysis results for the models.

Table 9
Model Fit Indices and Comparisons for Competing Measurement Models
RMSEA
Model χ2 df Δχ2 Δdf p AIC BIC
(90% CI)

.048
Initial measurement model 335.19 189 . 463.19 706.53
(.040-.057)
Including modified SDC and .057
530.97 255 195.78 66 .000 670.97 937.12
SRC items model (.050-.064)
Including M_O subscale items .050
342.75 189 . 470.75 714.09
model (.041-.058)
Note: SDC = Social Decategorization, SRC = Social Recategorization, and M_O = Mindfulness Observe
facet

A comparison of the change in chi-square, AIC, and BIC indicated that the initial

measurement model is a better fitting model to the data than the other two competing

models. Further exploration of model fit for this measurement model produced the

following values: GFI = .92, CFI = .93, and SRMR = .058. Therefore, these indices, and

especially the RMSEA index, indicate that the initial measurement model provides a

good fit to the data.

95
Structural Model

Using this initial measurement model, predicted paths were drawn to create the

initial structural model. Next, the initial structural model was compared to three, a priori,

alternative models to determine the best fitting structural equation model. The first

competing model explored the possibility that the Social Recategorization and Social

Decategorization latent variables correlate. Similarly, the second competing model

explored whether Conscious (Subtle) Prejudice and Subconscious Prejudice correlate as

well. The final alternative model explored the prediction that mindfulness reduces

conscious (subtle) and subconscious prejudice indirectly rather than directly by deleting

the direct paths from the Mindfulness variable to the prejudice variables. All three of

these competing structural models nest with the initial structural model, and therefore,

exploring the following indices will determine the best fitting structural model: change in

chi-square, AIC, and BIC. In addition, investigating the RMSEA index for each model

will present an idea of within model fit. Table 10 presents the model comparison

findings.

96
Table 10
Model Fit Indices and Comparisons for Competing Structural Models
RMSEA
Model χ2 df Δχ2 Δdf p AIC BIC
(90% CI)

.054
Initial structural model 378.42 193 498.42 726.54
(.046-.062)
.048
Correlated SDC and SRC model 338.66 192 39.76 1 .000 460.66 692.59
(.040-.056)
.054
Correlated CP and SP model 375.45 192 2.97 1 .085 497.45 729.38
(.046-.062)
.054
Indirect mindfulness only model 386.06 195 7.65 2 .022 502.06 722.58
(.046-.062)
Note: SDC = Social Decategorization, SRC = Social Recategorization, CP = Conscious (Subtle) Prejudice,
and SP = Subconscious Prejudice

A comparison of the change in chi-square, AIC, and BIC indicated that the first

alternative model (correlating the Social Recategorization and Social Decategorization

latent variables) is the best fitting model to the data than the initial model and the other

two competing models. Further exploration of model fit for this model produced the

following values: GFI = .92, CFI = .93, and SRMR = .058. Therefore, these indices, and

the RMSEA index, indicate that this structural model is the final structural equation

model for this study.

Path Coefficients and Effects

The primary focus of this study was to explore the direct and indirect effects of

mindfulness on conscious (subtle) and subconscious racial prejudice. Using the final

structural equation model for this study, Table 10 presents the unstandardized path

coefficients (b) with their standard error and critical ranges, and standardized path

coefficients (). Following, Table 11 depicts the standardized direct, indirect, and total

effects of latent variables using the final model.

97
Table 11
Unstandardized and Standardized Path Coefficients for the Final Structural Equation Model
Path b SE CR p 
M ---> SRC .050 .133 .380 .704 .027
---> SDC .528 .154 3.430 .000* .268
---> E .32 .067 1.963 .050 .154
---> CP .192 .095 2.010 .045 .144
---> SP .127 .065 1.960 .050 .131

PRC ---> SRC .025 .071 .358 .720 .027

---> SDC .169 .073 2.318 .020* .171
---> E .020 .033 .604 .546 .047
---> CP -.160 .047 -3.418 .000* -.240
---> SP .026 .031 .847 .397 .054

SRC ---> CP .013 .060 .213 .832 .018

---> SP .034 .041 .847 .397 .067

SDC ---> CP -.139 .064 -2.169 .030* -.206

---> SP -.088 .043 -2.034 .042* -.177

E ---> CP .037 .118 .315 .753 .024

---> SP -.144 .081 -1.773 .076 -.127

Note: M = Mindfulness, PRC = Prior Racial Outgroup Contact, SRC = Social Recategorization,
SDC = Social Decategorization, CP = Conscious (Subtle) Prejudice, and SP = Subconscious Prejudice

98
Table 12
Standardized Effects for the Final Structural Equation Model
Effect Variable SRC SDC E CP SP
Direct M .027 .268 .154 .144 .131
PRC .027 .171 .047 -.240 .054
SRC .000 .000 .000 .018 .067
SDC .000 .000 .000 -.206 -.177
E .000 .000 .000 .024 -.127

Indirect M .000 .000 .000 -.051 -.065

PRC .000 .000 .000 -.034 -.034
SRC .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
SDC .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
E .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Total M .027 .268 .154 .093 .065

PRC .027 .171 .047 -.274 .019
SRC .000 .000 .000 .018 .067
SDC .000 .000 .000 -.206 -.177
E .000 .000 .000 .024 -.127

Note: M = Mindfulness, PRC = Prior Racial Outgroup Contact, SRC = Social Recategorization, SDC =
Social Decategorization, CP = Conscious (Subtle) Prejudice, and SP = Subconscious Prejudice.

The path coefficients and effects contained within this model suggest a variety of

findings. As predicted, mindfulness had a positive effect on participants’ degree of social

decategorization of group membership (, and social decategorization had negative

effects on participants’ level of conscious (and subconscious (racial

prejudice. That is, given the adequacy of the model, for each standard deviation increase

in degree of mindfulness, participant’s degree of social decategorization will increase by

.27 of a standard deviation; in addition, for each standard deviation increase in degree of

social decategorization, participant’s level of conscious (subtle) prejudice and

subconscious prejudice will decrease by .21 and .18 of a standard deviation, respectively,

with all things being equal. However, because of the positive effects (although not

99
statistically significant) from mindfulness to both conscious (and subconscious

prejudice (, as well as the similar positive but nonsignificant direct paths from

empathy to conscious (subtle) prejudice (and from social recategorization to

conscious (subtle) prejudice (and subconscious ( prejudice levels, the

mediating effect of social decategorization was not large enough for mindfulness to have

negative effects on racial prejudice levels.

Two other predictions that were attained from the final model relate to prior racial

outgroup contact. This latent variable followed a similar path to mindfulness of having a

positive effect on participants’ degree of social decategorization (, although not

as large as the Mindfulness variable. However, and different from mindfulness, the

construct of Prior Racial Outgroup Contact had a negative effect on participants’ degree

of conscious (subtle) prejudice (.

Contrary to theoretical predictions, mindfulness did not have negative effects on

participants’ levels of racial prejudice, empathy, or social recategorization. Empathy and

social recategorization also did not have negative effects on participants’ racial prejudice

levels. Finally, prior racial outgroup contact did have negative effects on participants’

levels of subconscious prejudice.

The results of the path coefficients and effects contained within the final structural

equation model for this study indicate that after controlling for prior racial outgroup

contact, mindfulness does not appear to significantly decrease conscious (subtle) or

subconscious prejudice levels directly or indirectly through mediating variables of social

recategorization, social decategorization, and empathy.

100
 Discussion

The purpose of Study A was to explore if mindfulness influences White students’

conscious (subtle) and subconscious racial prejudice towards Blacks directly by

increasing awareness and attention to racial biases, and indirectly through motivational,

mediating variables of social re(de)categorization and empathy. The final results

indicated that mindfulness does not appear to affect prejudice levels directly or indirectly.

The overall finding that mindfulness did not directly decrease racial prejudice

levels are contrary to prediction, but perhaps not surprising. Although, general

mindfulness increases attention to and awareness of stimuli (e.g., leads to a greater

perceptivity and sensitivity to one’s environment, more openness to new information,

creation of new cognitive categories, and enhanced awareness to multiple perspectives,

Langer 1989, 1997), an increase in attention and awareness to racial stimuli, such as

racial discrimination or one’s own racial prejudices (i.e., racial mindfulness), may be too

distal. Investigating the effects of a racial mindfulness intervention focused on increasing

state mindfulness and directly educating individual regarding racial biases (in comparison

to a control intervention) is the next step in this program of research, and should provide

a clearer picture of the direct effects of mindfulness on racial prejudice levels.

However, the findings that general mindfulness did not increase racial prejudice

levels indirectly were more unexpected. According to the final structural equation model

in this study, although mindfulness significantly increased social decategorization and

social decategorization then significantly decreased conscious (subtle) and subconscious

101
prejudice levels, mindfulness, overall, did not indirectly affect prejudice levels. One

possible reason is how participants’ degree of empathy was measured in this study.

The findings that general mindfulness did not increase empathy, and empathy did

not decrease at least conscious (subtle) prejudice are quite contrary to prior research. The

similar findings for social recategorization (a form of interconnectedness) were not

deemed as important as this subscale was created for this study and therefore, may not be

measuring the attended construct. In future research, an interconnectedness scale with

confirmed construct validity, such as the Social Connectedness Scale (Lee & Robbins,

1995), will be explored.

Mindfulness has often been found related to or can increase an individual’s

empathy level (e.g., Miller, 1995; Shapiro et al., 1998, 2007). Similarly, empathy has

often been found to decrease an individual’s conscious (subtle) prejudice levels (Stephan

& Finlay, 1999; Finlay & Stephan, 2000). Upon further investigation, the believed

reason for the nonsignificant effect from mindfulness to empathy was due to one of the

empathy subscales (i.e., personal distress), significantly correlating (but negative and

weak) with the perspective-taking empathy subscale (r = -.15) and nonsignificantly

correlating with the other empathy subscale, empathetic concern (r = .08; see Table 4).

These subscales were predicted to correlate highly and determine a hierarchical empathy

factor. To investigate, I dropped this subscale, reran the empathy item parceling process,

and incorporated revised empathy item parcels into the initial measurement model and

final structural equation model.

102
 From this process, mindfulness did not improve the initial measurement model fit,

but did significantly increase participants’ degree of empathy (.18) in the final

structural equation model. In addition, the path from empathy to conscious (subtle)

prejudice changed in value (from to .02 to -.08However, although this path

from empathy to conscious (subtle) prejudice was negative, the coefficient was still small

and nonsignificant. Therefore, other path coefficients in the final structural equation

model did not change much. For example, mindfulness still did not directly, indirectly,

or totally affect racial prejudice levels.

One possible reason why empathy did not significantly decrease conscious

(subtle) prejudice, and therefore, why mindfulness did not decrease this prejudice

variable indirectly through empathy and social decategorization with or without the

personal distress subscale items included in the model, is because some prior researchers

have indicated that empathy is more of an emotion and therefore, has an negative effect

on the affective dimension of conscious (subtle) prejudice rather than the cognitive

dimension (Esses & Dovidio, 2002; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). The conscious (subtle)

prejudice scale used in this study was more measuring students’ cognitive dimension of

conscious (subtle) prejudice (e.g., “How much of the racial tension that exists in the

United States today do you think Blacks are responsible for creating?) and therefore,

provides reasoning why these predictions were not found. In future research, an affective

measure, such as a feeling thermometer (i.e., an imaginary scale ranging from 0o [very

cold] to 100 o [very warm] that prompts participants to indicate their feelings to a certain

103
person or group; Campbell, 1971), will be used to more closely investigate the indirect

effect of mindfulness on conscious (subtle) through the meditating variable of empathy.

The results found from this study must be interpreted in light of several

limitations. The first limitation is that most of the data collected in this study were self-

report. Social desirability and other issues, such as shared method variance, could have

biased the results. For example, the mean score for the conscious (subtle) prejudice, self-

report measure was relatively low in comparison to the mean score of the subconscious

prejudice, implicit measure, which was moderately high, although these instruments were

found to be measuring two different dimensions of prejudice or prejudice expression in

this study. A second limitation is that the data were obtained from students at only one

predominantly White institution (PWI). Incorporating students from other PWIs may

have improved the study, at least the generalization of findings. The third limitation also

relates to the sample. Because a large sample size is often needed in SEM, there were not

enough participants in this study to randomly split the total sample and cross-validate the

final structural model, which would have increased the validity of the findings. A fourth

limitation is that subconscious prejudice was determined in the models by only a single

observed indicator. Although reliability estimates were calculated for this measure, this

construct could still contain invalidity and unreliability, which could have influenced the

results. Similar to invalidity and unreliability issues, the fifth limitation in this study was

the use of item parceling for some of the latent variables. However, because the purpose

of the study was to explore the relations between latent variables and not the relations

among items comprising the measured variables, parceling was deemed appropriate. The

104
final limitation relates to SEM, as well as other statistical methods (e.g., multiple

regression and path analysis), is that the final structural equation model could have

omitted common variables or causes, which could have affected the results of the study.

However, it was believed that the randomly stratified and balanced sample, as well as

incorporating and measuring prior racial outgroup contact, subsumed all of the common

variables that can affect racial prejudice.

105
 CHAPTER 6: STUDY B

Study B explored the second research question of this dissertation: When

increasing White students’ awareness of and attention to racial biases, such as White

privilege, does mindfulness attenuate the negative effects that can arise from cognitive

dissonance, and therefore, influence participants’ degree of acceptance towards White

privilege? This question was qualitatively explored by performing content analysis on

White participants’ written reactions to an article that described White privileged

experiences. From the theoretical framework presented in chapters 2 and 3, it was

expected that participants with a higher degree of mindfulness would exhibit greater

acceptance to racial biases and less negative reactions resulting from post-decisional

cognitive dissonance.

Method

Participants

The study consisted of 40 students who were selected one week later from the

sample in Study A, using a stratified random sampling procedure. The strata used were

participants who responded “No” to the following qualifying item asked during Study A,

“Have you ever read an article by Peggy McIntosh (1989) entitled, ‘Unpacking the

Invisible Knapsack?’” and participants’ overall scores on the mindfulness measure. Of

students who met the first stratum, the 20 students with the highest overall mindfulness

scores ( =3.96) and the 20 students with the lowest mindfulness scores ( =2.87) from

Study A were recruited to participate in this study. The high mindful group consisted of

first-year (n=2, 10%), second-year (n=2, 10%), third-year (n=10, 50%), and fourth-year

106
level students (n=6, 30%), with a little more than half self-identifying as female (n=12,

60%). The low mindful group consisted of first-year (n=5, 25%), second-year (n=3,

15%), third-year (n=6, 30%), fourth-year (n=5, 25%), and fifth-year (senior) level

students (n=1, 5%), with close to half self-identifying as female (n=9, 45%).

Procedure 

Participants received an introductory message about the study via email that

included a SurveyMonkey Web address where electronic activities of the study were

housed. Once at the SurveyMonkey Web site, all groups first observed a consent form

that explained the potential risks and benefits of participation with limited knowledge

about the intention of the study to prevent bias. After reading the consent form and

agreeing to participate, students observed and completed a White privilege measure.

Following, and adapted from a similar procedure in Ancis and Szymanski (2001),

participants observed, read, and reacted to an article listing numerous benefits a White

woman has experienced due to her skin color in contrast to people of color. Before the

article was presented, the general directions read, “Please read the list below. Once

finished, identify 3 to 5 (or more) of the conditions that the author describes as relating to

White privilege, and within the blank template following, please provide reactions to the

conditions chosen.”

107
 Measures

White Privilege Measure

The White Privilege Scale (WPS; Swim & Miller, 1999; Appendix G) measured

participants’ degree of awareness and acceptance towards the construct of White

privilege. The WPS consists of five items based on McIntosh’s (1989) White privilege

article. Participants identified on a 5-point Likert scale (1= “Strongly Disagree” to 5 =

“Strongly Agree”) their degree of belief in White privilege. Sample items include: “My

skin color is an asset to me in my everyday life;” and “White people have certain

advantages that minorities do not have in this society.” Prior analyses indicated that items

reveal a single factor structure and scores are internally consistent (α=.72, N=102; Swim

& Miller).

White Privilege Article

After responding to the WPS, participants read and openly reacted to Peggy

McIntosh’s (1989) article, “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” (Appendix H). This

article lists 47 circumstances and conditions McIntosh has experienced as a White

woman, in contrast to people of color. In this article:

McIntosh describes her personal experiences of unearned advantages associated

with White privilege such as (a) accurate, positive, and ample representation of

her race in the media, academic institutions, and grade school materials; (b) being

able to associate with members of her own race most of the time; (c) easily

finding products and services associated with her race and cultural traditions; (d)

not experiencing discrimination when renting an apartment or purchasing a home,

108
 seeking medical assistance, shopping in a store, using credit cards or checks, and

interacting with other White people; (e) engaging in behavior (e.g., talking with a

full mouth, being late to a meeting, swearing, dressing in secondhand clothes)

without it being attributed to her race; and (f) ignoring or devaluing the cultural

values, traditions, and writings of people of color without experiencing any

negative consequences (Ancis & Szymanski, 2001, p. 551).

Data Analysis

In this study, I explored four assumptions based on findings from prior research.

The first assumption relates to the finding that most White individuals are unaware of

their Whiteness or White privilege, as it has been normalized and invisible (Wildman &

Davis, 1997). Therefore, it was assumed in this study that White participants with high

mindfulness would not significantly differ from participants with low mindfulness on the

White privilege measure, as both groups of participants will have relatively low scores.

I explored this assumption using the SPSS program by investigating frequencies

(and if applicable, mean differences) of scores on the WPS between participants with

high and low mindfulness scores. Participants with a high White privilege score (i.e.,

mean of 3.5 or above based on the 5-point Likert scale of the White privilege measure)

were dropped from further data analysis, as these respondents are not likely to experience

post-decisional cognitive dissonance from reading the article (i.e., they already were

aware of or agree to the construct of White privilege). As mentioned in chapter 3, post-

decisional cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling that people experience when

109
they realize that a rejected decision might have been better than their chosen decision

(Brehm, 1956, as cited in Gawronski et al., 2008).

The second and third assumption relate to the prior research findings that many

White individuals experience cognitive dissonance when first becoming aware of racial

biases, and can respond to this negative or uncomfortable feeling by supporting

(increasing) their racial prejudice levels or avoiding further investigation (Branscombe et

al., 2007; Pedersen et al., 2005). Gawronski et al. (2008) provided an explanation for this

latter phenomenon: When an individual experiences post-decisional cognitive

dissonance, the person will tend to emphasize or search for positive reasons of their

chosen decision and negative reasons of the rejected (but better) decision to reduce this

threat or feeling. As a result, it was assumed in this study that participants would

experience some degree of post-decisional cognitive dissonance after they indicate their

initial decision (a low score on the White privilege measure) and then observe evidence

for their rejected decision (read the White privilege article). In addition, to reduce their

dissonance, it was assumed that participants would provide support for their low score on

the White privilege measure (or lack of awareness and agreement to White privilege) and

attempt to debunk the White privilege article.

The last assumption is related to the open receptive nature of mindfulness and its

associated benefits. Prior research has determined that when one’s self-esteem or image

is threatened, the open receptivity (or acceptance) component of mindfulness can

attenuate ego defensiveness and negative emotions (Emavardhana & Tori, 1997; Heppner

et al., 2008; Hodgins & Knee, 2002). Therefore, it was assumed in this study that

110
mindfulness would mediate participants’ ego-defensiveness and negative emotions

resulting from participants’ post-decisional cognitive dissonance. In other words,

participants with high mindfulness scores would likely indicate greater acceptance and

less negative emotions in their reactions to the White privilege article in comparison to

participants with low mindfulness scores.

To explore these last three assumptions, a research team employed qualitative or

non-frequency content analysis on participants’ reaction papers. To allow multiple

themes and patterns related to White privilege emerge from the data, constant

comparative methodology (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was the coding process used in this

analysis procedure. In addition, responses were de-identified of mindfulness scores until

content analysis was complete.

Throughout the coding process, I implemented numerous steps to ensure

conformability (objectivity), transferability (external validity), and credibility (internal

validity) of the results (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I achieved conformability by analyst

triangulation with a second researcher5. The second researcher and I achieved

transferability by providing “thick descriptions” of the data and describing the context for

the reader in the following section. In addition, the second researcher and I achieved

credibility by having a diversity expert/auditor6, unfamiliar with the research questions or

5
The researcher is a doctoral graduate from the Department of Educational Psychology at The University
of Texas at Austin. The researcher self-identifies as White and has years of experience with qualitative
research, such as discourse analysis.
6
The auditor is a master’s graduate from the Department of Educational Administration at The University
of Texas at Austin. The auditor self-identifies as a person of color and has years of experience with social
justice and qualitative research.
111
purpose of the study, review the raw data, coding process and notes, and resulting themes

and subthemes of the analysis.

The constant comparative methodology used in this study consisted of six

different stages. In stage one, another researcher and I first read and reread,

independently, participants’ responses to become immersed in the data. A total of 27

pages were analyzed with responses ranging from 2 lines to 2.5 pages with an average of

15 lines or .5 a page. The number of White privilege conditions the students’ responded

to ranged from zero to six with an average of three conditions. After reading the data, we

met to discuss general patterns and themes observed emerging from the first 5 responses.

Upon initial discussion, we negotiated interpretive parameters around emerging

categories and created an outline of categories from the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994),

which resulted in four to eight categories for each response.

Next, stage two consisted of reviewing and open coding the next 10 responses

independently using the initial list of categories. The second researcher and I met again to

discuss the coding scheme and the findings for these responses. From this process, we

revised our coding structure (i.e., combining two categories into one, and adding two new

categories).

Stage three then consisted of reviewing the rest of the 25 responses independently

with the revised coding scheme. Once completed, we compared findings. We

experienced four disagreements of the meaningfulness of a statement/code within these

last responses, which resulted in returning to the original data. These disagreements were

discussed and resolved without dropping the statement or code from the analysis.

112
 In stage four, once the open coding was complete, we met and began to group

similar categories together and explore other patterns and themes across categories. Upon

completion of the content analysis and coding procedure, stage five consisted of

independently reviewing the final themes and subthemes of coding for each response to

assess coding accuracy. Finally, stage six consisted of exploring themes and subthemes

for participants with high- and low-mindfulness scores.

The auditor reviewed all six stages of this constant comparative process, as well

as the original data and disagreements encountered during coding. The auditor supported

much of the coding process but provided two recommendations, which were incorporated

as revisions. The first suggestion included revising the language for one of our themes

and the second consisted of revising coding for one response. Because this second

suggestion was also one of the code/statements that was initially disagreed upon, the

auditor’s suggestion was incorporated.

Results

I first investigated participants’ responses to the WPS. Following, the research

team identified themes and subthemes resulting from participants’ responses and coding

process. Finally, I explored themes and subthemes in relation to participants who were

categorized in high and low mindfulness groups.

White Privilege Scores

Investigating participants’ scores on the WPS resulted in the following findings.

Frequencies indicated that 10 participants (5 high- and 5 low-mindful participants) had a

total score above 3.5, indicating a high level of awareness and agreement to the construct

113
of White privilege. Therefore, these participants were included in the first three stages of

the content analysis process in order to aid open coding, but then deleted from subsequent

stages. The mean score of the 15 low-mindful participants was 2.50 with a standard

deviation of .684, and 2.32 with a standard deviation of .604 for the 15 high-mindful

participants. For the total 30 participants, internal consistency was .74 for the scores on

the White privilege measure. The new demographics of the high-mindful group

consisted of first-year (n=2, 13%), second-year (n=2, 13%), third-year (n=7, 47%), and

fourth-year level students (n=4, 27%), with still, a little more than half self-identifying as

female (n=8, 53%). The low mindful group now consisted of first-year (n=3, 20%),

second-year (n=3, 20%), third-year (n=6, 40%), fourth-year level students (n=3, 20%),

with close to half self-identifying as female (n=7, 47%).

Themes and Subthemes of the Content Analysis

In relation to participants’ responses to the White privilege article, our content

analysis process led to 4 general themes with 11 corresponding subthemes (see Table 13).

The general themes represent varying levels of awareness and agreement to the construct

of White privilege from none (Theme 1: Unawareness and/or denial to White privilege)

to little (Theme 2: Low awareness and/or agreement to White privilege) to moderate

(Theme 3: Moderate awareness and agreement to White privilege) and finally to high

(Theme 4: Profound awareness and agreement to White privilege). Each participant’s

response was coded into only one general theme and more than likely, was coded into

multiple subthemes of the broad category. Student demographics, such as classification

114
(e.g., first-year, second-year, etc.) and gender, did not appear to vary across the four

general themes.

Table 13
Themes and Subthemes of the Content Analysis
Themes

Theme 1: Unawareness and/or denial to White privilege

Subtheme 1A: Presenting counter examples

Subtheme 1B: Exhibiting anger or defensiveness

Subtheme 1C: Using strong or certain language

Subtheme 1D: Attributing differential treatment to nonracial factors

Theme 2: Low awareness and/or agreement to White privilege

Subtheme 2A: Partially attributing differential treatment to nonracial factors

Subtheme 2B: Indicating a decrease in (or a desire to decrease) differential treatment

Subtheme 2C: Presenting counter or reverse discrimination examples

Theme 3: Moderate awareness and agreement to White privilege

Subtheme 3A: Expanding on or providing additional examples of White privilege

Subtheme 3B: Partially attributing differential treatment to nonracial factors

Theme 4: Profound awareness and agreement to White privilege

Subtheme 4A: Indicating the negative effects of White privilege

Subtheme 4B: Expanding on or providing additional examples of White privilege

The mean White privilege score (based on the WPS) for participants whose

responses were categorized into Theme 1, Theme 2, Theme 3, and Theme 4 were 2.39,

2.26, 2.77, and 1.8, respectively, indicating a general level of disagreement to the

construct of White privilege across categories. As a result, the category themes and

corresponding subthemes within each category can exemplify how these individuals dealt

with the post-decisional cognitive dissonance they experienced from indicating

115
disagreement to White privilege and then reading 47 conditions of how White privilege

exists from McIntosh’s article.

Theme 1: Unawareness and/or Denial to White Privilege

Of the total participants, 12 out of 30 were categorized as demonstrating

unawareness, denial, or both to the construct of White privilege. Basically, White

privilege, racial discrimination, or racial prejudice did not exist for all of these

participants. For example, 7 participants identified with McIntosh’s condition #44 (“I

can easily find academic courses and institutions, which give attention only to people of

my race”) and expressed unawareness and disagreement, such as one student’s reaction:

I think there would be an uproar in America today if an academic institution

limited its attention to only Caucasians. I have never been to or heard of any such

place, nor have I heard of any student groups or scholarships explicitly reserved

for White people alone.

Some participants expressed more of an overall unawareness, such as “I never

think about race affecting my day to day activities. I can agree with most all of the

statements here because I don't believe race has a huge affect on my life.”

There were also four other common (but not majority) subthemes found across

these participants who presented unawareness, resistance, or both to the construct of

White privilege. These subthemes overlapped and included: presenting counter examples

to support their position, exhibiting anger or defensiveness, using strong or certain

language in their disagreement, and attributing differential treatment to nonracial factors.

116
 Subtheme 1A: Presenting counter examples. Of the 12 participants, 7 expressed

exception-to-the-rule or reverse discrimination examples to counter the White privilege

conditions in the article. The exception example cited by 3 participants was U.S.

President Barack Obama, as one student indicated,

In my opinion these statements are racist and generalizing to all White people.

White people are a majority yes, but it doesn't mean that there are no multiracial

people represented in powerful positions. One is being Obama, the President of

the United States.

In terms of reverse discrimination, 4 participants presented a variety of examples

to support their disagreement or unawareness position to White privilege, such as

indicating that White people are treated in a “derogatory fashion” by people of color, or

being looked over for a job if “if the company has yet to meet its quota for minority

candidates.” Further, in relation to McIntosh’s condition 5 (“I can go shopping alone

most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed”), one student

responded, “This is absolutely not true. White people are followed and harassed just as

much as any other race, if not more.”

Subtheme 1B: Exhibiting anger or defensiveness. Of the 12 participants who

demonstrated disagreement to White privilege, 5 expressed anger and defensiveness in

their responses. A range of expressions were used within and across responses that

included the following:

 “I think that a majority of all 47 statements are bullshit.”

117
  “I hate how you put ‘I’ in front of every sentence as to say that it relates to me in

any way.”

 “I am NOT privileged because I am White.”

 “Most of these statements are ridiculous.”

 “This is just stupid.”

 “The rest [of the conditions] are absurd but I will humor the survey.”

In some cases, participants’ anger and defensiveness was followed by prejudicial

language, such as, “I honestly don't care and don't feel they need to be griping about more

rights” and “Minorities continue to cry and whine” or possibly stereotypical language, “I

don't see how this [McIntosh’s condition 17] can even be related to race unless it is a

certain type of food, though I don't wish to list those foods at this time.”

Subtheme 1C: Using strong and certain language. Another subtheme found

across a third of the participants was a use of strong and certain language when

disagreeing to the construct of White privilege. Such examples include, “This is

absolutely not true; These statements are…wrong; Number 41 is completely false; I

believe it would be almost impossible to find a class that serves only to whites; fairly

certain that Equifax doesn't look at your profile, see ‘African American’, and then lower

your credit rating by 100 points.”

Subtheme 1D: Attributing differential treatment to nonracial factors. A final

subtheme found with a third of participants who were classified as lacking awareness or

denying White privilege was attributing differential treatment to factors other than race.

These participants might be exhibiting a degree of subtle prejudice (i.e., expressing their
118
prejudice indirectly or subtly as when racial beliefs or behavior can be justified on some

other factor than race). For example, some other nonracial factors attributing to

differential treatment were gender (“I believe that my being a woman has more to do with

inequality than my race”), personality (“I do not associate race with work ethic … That is

a general personality trait”), and behavior (“It is because people live on credit and don't

pay bills/rent on time”).

Theme 2: Low Awareness and/or Agreement to White Privilege

Of the total participants, 11 out of 30 were categorized as having a low degree of

awareness, agreement, or both to the construct of White privilege. In general, these

participants appeared to show a degree of awareness to at least one out of minimal three

McIntosh’s White privilege conditions they, on average, referenced, and would either

exhibit agreement to or contradict/justify the condition.

For example, a participant identified McIntosh’s first condition (“I can, if I wish,

arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time”) and provided the

following unaware response:

This isn't so much a privilege as much as it is a reality. Most of the organizations I

am involved in are mainly made up of White men and women so it's not very hard

to be in the company of people of my race. Like I said, I don't really see this as a

"privilege." It's just easier to find White people than it is to find other races.

However, for the another conditions cited, this participant indicated a degree of

awareness and agreement to White privilege, such as in response to McIntosh’s condition

25 (“If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I

119
haven't been singled out because of my race”): “Again, I have no idea what it feels like to

be singled out because of my race so I see this as a privilege. I can imagine it would be

quite frustrating though.”

In addition with this broad theme, participant responses differed from participants

in the first theme by not expressing anger or defensiveness in their responses. Moreover,

the language used in participant responses in this group was more flexible, which differed

drastically from those 4 students in the first theme that used strong and certain language.

For instance, phrases, such as “I think…; I do not totally agree…;” or “I feel is

unlikely…” were used often across participants in this group.

There were also three other common (but not majority), overlapping subthemes

found across participants whose responses indicated a low degree of awareness,

agreement, or both to the construct of White privilege. These included partially

attributing differential treatment to nonracial factors (e.g., Whites being the majority),

indicating a decrease in (or a desire to decrease) differential treatment, and providing

numerous counter examples. Two of these subthemes were somewhat similar to two

subthemes in Theme 1. The main difference, however, was that participants in this

general theme indicated a degree of awareness to at least one of the minimal three White

privilege conditions participants, on average, referenced, in comparison to participants in

Theme 1. In addition, other differences between these subthemes exist and are minor,

such as the subtheme of attributing differential treatment to nonracial factors, which

differs between Theme 1 and Theme 2 by degree of attribution from full to partial

attribution.

120
 Subtheme 2A: Partially attributing differential treatment to nonracial factors. Of

the 11 participants categorized in this broad theme, 8 were found to partially attribute

differential treatment to factors other than race. These participants’ appeared to indicate

agreement to differential treatment but would somewhat justify that at least one of the

treatments was based on such nonracial factors as money, personality trait, achievement,

class, appearance, Whites being majority, choice, or gender.

For example, one of these participants cited three of McIntosh’s conditions and

indicated:

I feel these three describe White privilege in America today. Although number

three is really a privilege of any one who has enough money to support

themselves and their family should be able to live in an area which they can

afford and want to live, I think that all people should be able to do well in a

challenging situation without it being called a credit to their race.

To provide a further example, another participant concluded with the following:

I think racial attitudes are more based on personality and personal achievement

than solely race. Some people of color do fall into the stereotypes that are

culturally placed on them, but a large number have started to break through these

stereotypes and now on a more even platform.

Subtheme 2B: Indicating a decrease in (or a desire to decrease) differential

treatment. Of the total participants falling into Theme 2, 7 indicated a decrease in

differential treatment from America’s past to present society, or a desire for

egalitarianism or being color-blind. Examples of the decrease in differential treatment

121
are exhibited in the following responses: “More and more people are beginning to value a

cultured view of the world and ignorance is something that I feel is not looked on

kindly;” “Number 24, I feel is highly unlikely in today's time. Speaking to the person in

charge now does not necessarily mean that you will be speaking to a white person. We

have taken long strides;” and “Today I feel that race has nothing to do with that factor.”

In relation to egalitarian or color-blind desires, the following two responses provide

evidence: “I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group. This is true,

but no one should be asked to speak for all of the people in one racial group;” and “We

are all people and doing well should give credit to the person not the color of their skin.”

Subtheme 2C: Presenting counter examples. A third subtheme for 6 of the 11

participant responses was the use of counter examples to help support the subthemes or

the overall theme found for this group. For instance, 2 participants cited President

Barack Obama as an example of our society decreasing in differential treatment. Others

cited disagreement with one or more of McIntosh’s White privilege conditions, by

providing examples of reverse discrimination. For example, a participant responded,

In today's society, the "White privilege", in many cases, works against White

people, especially in the legal sense. If a White person is on trial against a person

of race, many times the jury will decide in favor of the person of race, believing

that White person persecuted the person of race b/c there does exist a notion of

"White privilege".

122
Theme 3: Moderate Awareness and Agreement to White Privilege

Of the 30 total participants, 6 were categorized as having a moderate degree of

awareness and acceptance to the construct of White privilege. Overall, these participants

demonstrated a degree of awareness and agreement to at least two of McIntosh’s White

privilege conditions. Or, participants exhibited awareness and agreement to at least one

condition of the minimal three selected, but indicated the negative effects caused by the

privilege(s). For an example of this latter criterion, a participant demonstrated awareness

and agreement to only one White privilege condition (I can do well at something without

having people call me a credit to my race) and then indicated:

I definitely feel that successful minority members, and in particular African

Americans or Latinos, are often seen in this light, by both Whites and members of

their own race. Often times you hear people say things like, "I am a proud,

successful black woman"; however, I doubt many White people would make a

similar statement. It is hard to see the fine line between being a leader or success

story for a group of people without having one's success perhaps treated

differently because of your background.

There were also two other common (but not majority), overlapping subthemes

found across participants whose responses indicated a moderate degree of awareness,

agreement, or both to the construct of White privilege. These include expanding on or

providing additional examples of White privilege, and partially attributing differential

treatment to nonracial factors. This last subtheme is similar to the subtheme found from

the 8 participants categorized in Theme 2.

123
 Subtheme 3A: Expanding on or providing additional examples of White privilege.

Of the 6 participants who demonstrated a moderate degree of awareness and agreement to

White privilege, 4 expanded or provided additional examples related to the White

privilege condition(s) they agreed to in their responses. An example of expanding on a

White privilege condition(s) is from a participant who agreed to condition 7 (“When I am

told about our national heritage or about ‘civilization,’ I am shown that people of my

color made it what it is”) and responded:

…when studying American history, our national heritage and our civilization, the

focus was mostly on the White race and their domination and cultivation of the

Americas. Granted, studies were done on all kinds of other cultures that were not

Caucasian, but they were done in short periods of time, while the majority of the

time was spent on our White forefathers discovering and colonizing our country.

An example of providing further examples related to the agreeing White privilege

condition(s) is from a participant who agreed to condition 22 (“I can remain oblivious of

the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without

feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion”) and concluded:

…I see how the author is coming from a very Americanized point of view of

"White privilege." In this country, individuals such as Hispanics have a very

difficult time because they are expected to learn and speak "White people"

language. However, if a White person were to go to Spain, India, or Africa, they

would definitely be penalized if they remained oblivious of the language and

customs of different people.

124
 Subtheme 3B: Partially attributing differential treatment to nonracial factors. The

last subtheme included 3 of the 6 participant responses and refers to the partial attribution

of differential treatment to factors other than race for the White privilege condition(s)

disagreed upon. These participants demonstrated agreement to differential treatment but

would partially rationalize that the treatment was based on such nonracial factors as

Whites being the majority, gender, or being uncultured. For example, in disagreement to

condition 6 (“I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see

people of my race widely represented”), a participant responded:

Newscasts and television programs are predominantly casted with Caucasian

people, so it's not unlikely to turn on the television and see someone of my race

on the screen. Of course, the media industry has been improving over the past few

decades.

Theme 4: Profound Awareness and Agreement to White Privilege

Only 1 out of the 30 total participants was categorized as having a profound

degree of awareness and acceptance to the construct of White privilege. This participant

demonstrated a degree of awareness and agreement to all of the McIntosh’s White

privilege conditions referenced, as well as exhibited the following two subthemes found

often in the response: indicating the negative effects and expanding on or providing

additional examples of White privilege.

Subtheme 4A: Indicating the negative effects of White privilege. The participant

who demonstrated a profound degree of acceptance and awareness to White privilege,

indicated many negative effects of White privilege throughout her or his response. For

125
example, in relation to the agreement of condition 7 (“When I am told about our national

heritage or about ‘civilization,’ I am shown that people of my color made it what it is”),

this participant responded:

I think this is an important point because children need positive role models to

look up to. If schools or other contexts concentrate on white history leaders, then

a child of a racial minority is learning that people of their race did not contribute

positively to their history or culture.

Another example is in relation to condition 22 (“I can remain oblivious of the language

and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in

my culture any penalty for such oblivion”), where the participant responded, “…our lack

of knowledge of other cultures is regrettable because it makes the people of the United

States seem as if we don't care about people in other countries.”

Subtheme 4B: Expanding on or providing additional examples of White privilege.

The final subtheme found often throughout this participant’s response is substantially

expanding or providing additional examples of White privilege. One example is in

response to condition 22, where the participant provided an additional example of failing

to learn about other cultures:

When our Secretary of State Hilary Clinton went recently to Russia, she

committed cultural and language blunders when she gave him a "reset" button,

which was translated into the Russian word for 'overload'. The Russian

representative had to explain to her (in English) her mistake. This reflects poorly

126
 on the United States that we could not even find a translator, while the Russian

diplomat was able to communicate in our language.

In relation to condition 35 (“I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without

having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race”), this

participant expanded on this privilege:

When an employer looking to up their quota of minority employees uses

affirmative action at the expense of white candidates, it is no surprise when the

White co-workers assume that their new employee's race was a deciding factor.

Policies like this, although they may increase the amount of minority employees

in that workplace, send the message that these minority groups can't be successful

without help.

Low and High Mindfulness Participants

The purpose of Study B was to explore if participants with a higher degree of

mindfulness would exhibit greater acceptance to racial biases and less negative reactions

resulting from post-decisional cognitive dissonance. As a result, I explored the

differences between themes and subthemes of low and high mindfulness participants. The

number of participants in low and high mindfulness groups by themes and subthemes are

presented in Tables 14 and 157.

7
I considered using non-parametric tests, such as a chi-square test, to explore if these differences between
low mindful and high mindful were statistically significant. However, one of the general assumptions for
these types of tests is that cell sizes are 5 or larger, which is not the case for Themes 3 and 4.
127
Table 14
Themes and Subthemes by Participants in the Low Mindfulness Group
Low
Total
Themes mindful
n
n (%)

Theme 1: Unawareness and/or denial to White privilege 7 (58%) 12

Subtheme 1A: Presenting counter examples 4 (57%) 7

Subtheme 1B: Exhibiting anger or defensiveness 4 (57%) 5

Subtheme 1C: Using strong or certain language 2 (29%) 4

Subtheme 1D: Attributing differential treatment to nonracial factors 4 (57%) 4

Theme 2: Low awareness and/or agreement to White privilege 6 (55%) 11

Subtheme 2A: Partially attributing differential treatment to nonracial
4 (67%) 8
factors
Subtheme 2B: Indicating a decrease in (or a desire to decrease) differential
3 (50%) 7
treatment
Subtheme 2C: Presenting counter or reverse discrimination examples 3 (50%) 6

Theme 3: Moderate awareness and agreement to White privilege 2 (33%) 6

Subtheme 3A: Expanding on or providing additional examples of White
1 (50%) 4
privilege
Subtheme 3B: Partially attributing differential treatment to nonracial
1 (50%) 3
factors
Theme 4: Profound awareness and agreement to White privilege 0 1
Subtheme 4A: Indicating the negative effects of White privilege 0 1
Subtheme 4B: Expanding on or providing additional examples of White
0 1
privilege

128
Table 15
Themes and Subthemes by Participants in the High Mindfulness Group
High
Total
Themes mindful
n
n (%)

Theme 1: Unawareness and/or denial to White privilege 5 (42%) 12

Subtheme 1A: Presenting counter examples 3 (60%) 7

Subtheme 1B: Exhibiting anger or defensiveness 1 (20%) 5

Subtheme 1C: Using strong or certain language 2 (40%) 4

Subtheme 1D: Attributing differential treatment to nonracial factors 0 4

Theme 2: Low awareness and/or agreement to White privilege 5 (45%) 11

Subtheme 2A: Partially attributing differential treatment to nonracial
4 (80%) 8
factors
Subtheme 2B: Indicating a decrease in (or a desire to decrease) differential
4 (80%) 7
treatment
Subtheme 2C: Presenting counter or reverse discrimination examples 4 (80%) 6

Theme 3: Moderate awareness and agreement to White privilege 4 (77%) 6

Subtheme 3A: Expanding on or providing additional examples of White
3 (75%) 4
privilege
Subtheme 3B: Partially attributing differential treatment to nonracial
2 (50%) 3
factors
1
Theme 4: Profound awareness and agreement to White privilege 1
(100%)
Subtheme 4A: Indicating the negative effects of White privilege 1 (100%) 1
Subtheme 4B: Expanding on or providing additional examples of White
1 (100%) 1
privilege

In terms of the four general themes, it appears that participants with a low degree

of mindfulness are associated more with a lack or low degree of awareness and

agreement to White privilege (58% and 55%, respectively), where participants with a

moderate to high degree of mindfulness are associated with a higher degree of awareness

and agreement to White privilege (77% and 100%, respectively). Within Theme 1,

participants with low mindfulness are associated with more anger or defensive reactions

to, what is assumed to be, post-decisional cognitive dissonance (57%) than participants

129
with high mindfulness (20%). Therefore, the results of Study B appear to indicate that

participants with a higher degree of mindfulness exhibited greater acceptance to racial

biases and less negative reactions resulting from post-decisional cognitive dissonance.

Discussion

The purpose of Study B was to explore if mindfulness influences White students’

degree of acceptance towards the racial bias of White privilege, and decrease negative

reactions resulting from post-decisional cognitive dissonance. From analyzing written

responses to an article that lists 47 White privilege conditions from 15 participants with

the lowest overall mindfulness scores and 15 participants with the highest mindfulness

scores in Study A, and who all initially reported in Study B a low agreement to the

construct of White privilege, four overall themes relating to differing degrees of

awareness and acceptance to the construct of White privilege emerged. The findings

suggest that, as predicted, participants with a higher degree of mindfulness appeared to

exhibit greater acceptance to the racial construct of White privilege and less negative

reactions resulting from post-decisional cognitive dissonance. This finding was similar to

the results from the racial mindfulness study by Lillis and Hayes (2007), where

mindfulness increased participants’ degree of awareness and acceptance towards racial

biases.

There are some limitations to this study. The other White coder and I could have

influenced our interpretations of the data due to our race. In addition, I could have biased

the results due to my perspective on the construct of White privilege, as well as my

understanding of the purpose of the study. These possibilities were the reason for the use

130
of a qualified research team including an auditor who identifies as a person of color, as

well as implementing numerous steps to ensure conformability, transferability, and

credibility. However, the study still needs to be replicated. Social desirability also could

have affected participants’ responses. For example, one participant provided the

following two statements, which could indicate that this person was concerned with

social desirability when responding: “To preface this, I'd like to say that I was raised in a

household that typically condemned other races privately but was open to them in public”

and “I don't see how this can even be related to race unless it is a certain type of food,

though I don't wish to list those foods at this time.” Another limitation is that McIntosh’s

list of conditions was based on her own observations from 1989. An updated version of

the White privilege list was considered but not implemented. Due to the number of

respondents who used President Barack Obama as a counter example to White privilege,

a revision is recommended for future research.

131
 CHAPTER 7: GENERAL DISCUSSION

Overview

Persisting racial differences between White and marginalized racial groups

continue to exist in almost every social sector. Such examples of racial inequalities can

be observed in domains of net income and net worth, home equity and ownership, and

academic success and schooling. Researchers have determined that a substantial portion

of these inequalities is explained by past and present racial discrimination, which is

initially driven by past and present racial prejudice.

Due to the rise in egalitarian beliefs and social norms, present racial prejudice and

discrimination has not decreased within the last century, but rather they have altered to

subtler and subconscious forms; in addition, these present forms have been found to have

consequences just as devastating as historical racial attitudes and behavior. Because

racial prejudice is believed to be the primary force behind racial discriminatory behavior,

and consequently, inequalities, many researchers have focused on investigating variables

and creating interventions to reduce conscious (subtle) and subconscious racial prejudice.

Prejudice researchers suggest three general conditions are needed to decrease

one’s racial attitudes: (a) consciousness of racial biases, (b) motivation to reduce them,

and (c) cognitive strategies for prejudice regulation. However, most White Americans do

not hold a high degree of racial consciousness; therefore, interventions and educational

programs are needed. In addition, when Whites’ racial consciousness is increased, many

experience negative motivational outcomes from cognitive dissonance, such as anger or

guilt, which can influence Whites to avoid or increase their racial attitudes. Moreover,

132
due to the natural of prejudice, developing and practicing cognitive strategies to

continually regulate and reduce prejudice is cognitively taxing, difficult for many, and

generally not a focus within most racial intervention/education programs, such as

intergroup contact.

The construct of mindfulness may provide a solution to these limitations and help

reduce both conscious (subtle) and subconscious racial prejudice. Mindfulness is defined

as awareness of and attention to stimuli with open receptivity or acceptance. Therefore,

this construct may reduce racial prejudice directly due to its inherent nature of increasing

attention and awareness to stimuli (i.e., perhaps increasing racial consciousness). More

importantly, mindfulness may directly improve a White person’s degree of acceptance

towards her or his racial prejudice, again, due to its definitional nature. Also, there is

prior research that has showed mindfulness can decrease ego defense activation.

Furthermore, mindfulness may reduce racial prejudice indirectly due to the work of

researchers who have found that mindfulness can influence, or is associated with, similar

motivational variables that reduces racial prejudice levels, such as social recategorization

or social decategorization (i.e., interconnectedness), and empathy.

When mindfulness is directed towards race or incorporated with racial content

(i.e., racial mindfulness), introducing the construct and mindfulness practices should

substantially reduce racial prejudice levels both directly and indirectly. Although this is

the ultimate goal of this program of research, this dissertation explored the initial and

needed steps before a racial mindfulness intervention should be created, by first

investigating the effects of general mindfulness on racial prejudice, and then the effects

133
of general mindfulness on accepting racial biases, such as White privilege. These

exploratory steps will not only help create the theoretical framework and support for a

racial mindfulness intervention, but can also guide the framework and intervention if any

findings result.

Therefore, the first exploratory step, Study A, investigated the extent to White

students’ degree of general mindfulness can influence their degree of racial prejudice

towards Blacks directly through its conceptual nature of influencing attention and

awareness to internal and external stimuli. In addition, Study A explored the extent to

White students’ degree of general mindfulness can influence their degree of prejudice

indirectly through influencing motivational mediating variables of social

recategorization, social decategorization, and empathy. In order to more clearly

determine the direct and indirect effect of mindfulness on racial prejudice, both of these

explorations included controlling for participants’ prior racial outgroup contact. Using

structural equation modeling to explore these effects, results indicated that general

mindfulness does not appear to reduce racial prejudice levels directly or indirectly.

The nonsignificant direct effects of mindfulness on conscious (subtle) and

subconscious racial prejudice levels were unexpected, but yet, perhaps not too surprising.

Assuming that a person’s degree of awareness and attention to general stimuli (i.e.,

general mindfulness) would include racial stimuli (i.e., racial mindfulness) was possibly

too distal – especially for Whites who are generally not aware and attentive to race.

Implementing mindfulness practices before or during an intervention focusing on racial

content (i.e., exploring a racial mindfulness intervention), particularity for White

134
students, presents a more proximal research design to explore the direct effects of

mindfulness on racial prejudice.

The nonsignificant indirect effects of mindfulness on racial prejudice levels from

Study A were more unexpected, as mindfulness has been found to increase variables that

can reduce racial prejudice levels. In this study, mindfulness did significantly increase

social decategorization and this latter variable did significantly decrease both conscious

(subtle) and subconscious prejudice levels. However, mindfulness did not significantly

increase social recategorization and empathy, and these latter variables did not

significantly decrease prejudice levels.

Possible explanations for these nonsignificant effects relate to some of the

instruments used in the study. For example, the social recategorization subscale was

created for this study and although reliability and factor analyses were conducted and

provide some psychometric validity for scores on the measure, this subscale’s construct

validity was not investigated. Therefore, there is a possibility that this subscale was not

measuring its attended construct. In addition, the reason a relation between empathy and

conscious (subtle) prejudice was not observed is perhaps because the prejudice scale used

in this study measured participants’ cognitive dimension of prejudice; prior researchers

have found that empathy influences the affective dimension of racial prejudice rather than

the cognitive dimension. As a result, future research incorporating a different social

recategorization and conscious (subtle) measure, as well as alleviating the personal

distress subscale for the empathy measure in this study – discussed in chapter 5, may

provide a clearer exploration of whether mindfulness can indirectly reduce racial

135
prejudice through social recategorization, social decategorization, and empathy.

The next exploratory step, Study B, investigated if mindfulness can attenuate the

negative effects that can arise from cognitive dissonance, and therefore, influence White

students’ degree of acceptance towards racial biases, such as White privilege. Many

findings emerged from content analyzing written reactions to a White privilege article

from participants identified as holding a high and low degree of general mindfulness and

who expressed low agreement initially to the concept of White privilege. Overall, there

appeared to be a continuum of awareness and acceptance to White privilege, from a lack

of awareness and denial to a profound degree of awareness and acceptance. The results

also appeared to indicate that participants with a high degree of mindfulness exhibited

greater awareness and acceptance to White privilege and less negative reactions resulting

from post-decisional cognitive dissonance. For example, 30% (n=5) of the high

mindfulness participants appeared to express a moderate to high degree of acceptance to

the White privilege article in comparison to a little over 10% (n=2) of the low

mindfulness participants. In addition, 7% (n=1) of the high mindfulness participants

appeared to exhibit anger or defensiveness to the article in contrary to 27% (n=4) of the

low mindfulness participants.

Implications and Directions for Future Research

These overall findings and other results from these two studies underscore the (a)

importance of needing racial interventions and educational programs for White college

students, (b) support the need for a racial mindfulness intervention/program, and (c)

inform curriculum development and activities for such an intervention. In relation to the

136
need for racial interventions/programs, the finding that White participants in Study A, on

average, have a moderate degree of subconscious prejudice towards Blacks is

disheartening, but, according to research, was not unexpected. Moreover, the finding that

30 out of initial 40 White participants in Study B indicated a general disagreement to the

construct of White privilege, and only 7 out of the 30 disagreeing participants appeared to

express at least a moderate level of acceptance after reading a list of countering

information, was again, discouraging. These findings may emphasize that racial

interventions or educational programs are needed at higher education institutions with

predominantly White students.

The results from Study B support the need for future research in creating and

exploring the effects of a racial mindfulness intervention/program. In a way, Study B

simulated a short racial intervention. For example, in such an intervention, students

arrive with a set of beliefs and then receive information that could discredit their belief

system. The responses from Study B may exemplify some of the ways students might

initially react from this intervention. For instance, a strong majority of participants may

still exhibit denial or low agreement to the information being presented. Of these

participants, a quarter may respond in anger or defensiveness, close to half may disagree

by providing counter or reverse discrimination examples, and half of the participants may

disagree by fully or partially attributing differential treatment to nonracial factors.

Therefore, even if a racial intervention/program is offered to White college

students, it could be expected from Study B findings (as well as the literature on

conscious [subtle] prejudice and the limitations on prejudice reduction) that the

137
intervention could push some students away from further exploration of racial bias

reduction or increase their biased levels. As the main results of Study B showed (similar

to Lillis & Hayes, 2007), participants with a higher degree of mindfulness appeared to

exhibit greater acceptance to racial biases and less negative reactions. Therefore, a racial

intervention/program/course that incorporates the discussion and practices of mindfulness

may be needed for White college students in order to increase acceptance of racial biases,

decrease negative emotions resulting from the intervention, and hopefully improve racial

prejudice levels.

The results from Study B also could inform curriculum development and

activities for a racial mindfulness intervention/program/course. For example, discussion

and practices of mindfulness should probably be included at the beginning of the program

before any racial content or activities are incorporated in order to decrease, as much as

possible, the negative effects of cognitive dissonance. In addition, once mindfulness

practices are in place, the subthemes from Study B indicate various themes that should be

incorporated within the racial intervention portion. For example, training efforts that

challenge the notion that differential treatment is unrelated to racial factors is needed.

Results from Study B also seem to indicate that the intervention/program model should

often try to incorporate mindfulness into racial bias activities to continue awareness and

acceptance levels throughout the program. For example, there were many participants

within Theme 2 and 3 of Study B that seemed to waver back and forth between

agreement to White privilege throughout their responses.

138
 Conclusion

The desired outcome of many racial interventions and programs is for Whites to

awaken to and challenge their own and others’ racial biases. As discussed throughout this

dissertation, an obstacle for many Whites is not only becoming aware and attentive to

race, but also moving past negative emotions, such as shame and guilt, when becoming

conscious of racial biases. The results from Study B appear to indicate that mindfulness

may be a way Whites could experience less negative reactions and become more

accepting when becoming conscious of racial biases, such as White privilege. The next

step in this program of research is to explore a racial mindfulness intervention and its

effects on White college students’ acceptance towards racial biases, racial prejudice

levels, continued prejudice regulation, and discriminatory behavior.

Racial prejudice is indeed normative and common; however, it is also pernicious,

causing much of the racial inequalities in America. When approached in a compassionate

manner with the help of mindfulness, it is the hope of this program of research that the

results will be substantial, especially for people who racially identify as White.

139
 APPENDIX A: PREVIOUS RACIAL OUTGROUP CONTACT SCALE

Directions:
For the following statements, please indicate the percentage of people who are (or were) “White.” As
noted on the consent form, your results will be kept confidential.

0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

1. Percentage of high school classmates that

were White: O O O O O

2. Percentage of neighborhood where you

grew up that was White: O O O O O

3. Percentage of current close friends that

are White: O O O O O

4. Percentage of current neighbors that are

White: O O O O O

5. Percentage of immediate family members

that are White: O O O O O

6. Percentage of non-immediate family

members that you contact with regularly
O O O O O
that are White:

7. Percentage of people you have had

romantic relationships with who are O O O O O
White:
Note: All items were reverse scored.

140
 APPENDIX B: FIVE FACET MINDFULNESS QUESTIONNAIRE (FFMQ)

Directions:
For the following statements, please rate each of the following statements using the scale provided. Your
answers should indicate what best describes your own opinion of what is generally true for you.

Very
Never or
Rarely Sometimes Often often or
very rarely
true true true always
true
true
1. When I’m walking, I deliberately notice the
O O O O O
sensations of my body moving.
2. I’m good at finding words to describe my
O O O O O
feelings.
3. I criticize myself for having irrational or
O O O O O
inappropriate emotions.
4. I perceive my feelings and emotions
O O O O O
without having to react to them.
5. When I do things, my mind wanders off
O O O O O
and I’m easily distracted.
6. When I take a shower or bath, I stay alert to
O O O O O
the sensations of water on my body.
7. I can easily put my beliefs, opinions, and
O O O O O
expectations into words.
8. I don’t pay attention to what I’m doing
because I’m daydreaming, worrying, or O O O O O
otherwise distracted.
9. I watch my feelings without getting lost in
O O O O O
them.
10. I tell myself I shouldn’t be feeling the way
O O O O O
I’m feeling.
11. I notice how foods and drinks affect my
O O O O O
thoughts, bodily sensations, and emotions.
12. It’s hard for me to find the words to
O O O O O
describe what I’m thinking.
13. I am easily distracted.
O O O O O
14. I believe some of my thoughts are abnormal
O O O O O
or bad and I shouldn’t think that way.
15. I pay attention to sensations, such as the
O O O O O
wind in my hair or sun on my face.
16. I have trouble thinking of the right words to
O O O O O
express how I feel about things
17. I make judgments about whether my
O O O O O
thoughts are good or bad.
18. I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s
O O O O O
happening in the present.
19. When I have distressing thoughts or
images, I “step back” and am aware of the
O O O O O
thought or image without getting taken over
by it.
141
20. I pay attention to sounds, such as clocks
O O O O O
ticking, birds chirping, or cars passing.
21. In difficult situations, I can pause without
O O O O O
immediately reacting.
22. When I have a sensation in my body, it’s
difficult for me to describe it because I O O O O O
can’t find the right words.
23. It seems I am “running on automatic”
O O O O O
without much awareness of what I’m doing.
24. When I have distressing thoughts or
O O O O O
images, I feel calm soon after.
25. I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking the
O O O O O
way I’m thinking.
26. I notice the smells and aromas of things.
O O O O O
27. Even when I’m feeling terribly upset, I can
O O O O O
find a way to put it into words.
28. I rush through activities without being
O O O O O
really attentive to them.
29. When I have distressing thoughts or images
I am able just to notice them without O O O O O
reacting.
30. I think some of my emotions are bad or
O O O O O
inappropriate and I shouldn’t feel them.
31. I notice visual elements in art or nature,
such as colors, shapes, textures, or patterns O O O O O
of light and shadow.
32. My natural tendency is to put my
O O O O O
experiences into words.
33. When I have distressing thoughts or
O O O O O
images, I just notice them and let them go.
34. I do jobs or tasks automatically without
O O O O O
being aware of what I’m doing.
35. When I have distressing thoughts or
images, I judge myself as good or bad, O O O O O
depending what the thought/image is about.
36. I pay attention to how my emotions affect
O O O O O
my thoughts and behavior.
37. I can usually describe how I feel at the
O O O O O
moment in considerable detail.
38. I find myself doing things without paying
O O O O O
attention.
39. I disapprove of myself when I have
O O O O O
irrational ideas.
Note: Items 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 34, 35, 38, and 39 were reverse scored; Items 1, 6, 11, 15,
20, 26, 31, and 36 are observe subscale items. Items 2, 7, 12, 16, 22, 27, 32, and 37 are describe subscale items; Items 5, 8,
13, 18, 23, 28, 34, and 38 are act with awareness items; Items 3, 10, 14, 17, 25, 30, 35, and 39 are nonjudge subscale items;
Items 4, 9, 19, 21, 24, 29, and 33 are non-react subscale items.

142
 APPENDIX C: INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX (IRI)

Directions:
For the following statements, please indicate how well the item describes you.
Does not Describes
describe Neutral me very
me well well
1. I often have tender, concerned feelings for
people less fortunate than me. O O O O O

2. I sometimes find it difficult to see things

from the "other guy's" point of view. O O O O O

3. Sometimes I don't feel very sorry for other

people when they are having problems. O O O O O

4. In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive

and ill-at-ease. O O O O O

5. I try to look at everybody's side of a

disagreement before I make a decision. O O O O O

6. When I see someone being taken advantage

of, I feel kind of protective towards them. O O O O O

7. I sometimes feel helpless when I am in the

middle of a very emotional situation. O O O O O

8. I sometimes try to understand my friends

better by imagining how things look from O O O O O
their perspective.
9. When I see someone get hurt, I tend to
remain calm. O O O O O

10. Other people's misfortunes do not usually

disturb me a great deal. O O O O O

11. If I'm sure I'm right about something, I don't

waste much time listening to other people's O O O O O
arguments.
12. Being in a tense emotional situation scares
O O O O O
me.
13. When I see someone being treated unfairly, I
sometimes don't feel very much pity for O O O O O
them.
14. I am usually pretty effective in dealing with
emergencies. O O O O O

15. I am often quite touched by things that I see

happen. O O O O O

143
16. I believe that there are two sides to every
question and try to look at them both. O O O O O

17. I would describe myself as a pretty soft-

hearted person. O O O O O

18. I tend to lose control during emergencies.

O O O O O

19. When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to

"put myself in his shoes" for a while. O O O O O

20. When I see someone who badly needs help in

an emergency, I go to pieces. O O O O O

21. Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine

how I would feel if I were in their place. O O O O O

Note: Items 2, 3, 10, 11, 13, and all personal distress subscale items were reverse scored; Items 2, 5, 8, 11, 16, 19, and 21 are
perspective-taking subscale items; Items 1, 3, 6, 10, 13, 15, and 17 are empathetic concern subscale item; Items 4, 7, 9, 12,
14, 18, and 20 are personal distress subscale items.

144
 APPENDIX D: PILOT STUDY FOR THE SOCIAL RE(DE)CATEGORIZATION

SCALE

The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the psychometrics of the Social

Re(De)categorization scale (adapted from Gaertner et al., 1994) that will be used in Study

A of the dissertation. The Social Re(De)categorization scale was designed to measure

two factors of group membership: social recategorization and decategorization using nine

items on a 5-point Likert response scale. Four items of this scale have been used in prior

research (Gaernter et al., 1994) and five new items were constructed for this dissertation.

Therefore, scale psychometrics need to be explored.

A total 124 graduate students from the University of Texas at Austin completed

the Social Re(De)categorization scale through a SurveyMonkey Web site. More of the

participants identified as female (68%) and one student (1%) identified as transgender.

In terms of race, most participants identified as White (63%), while others identified as

Asian (20%), Black (2%), and Latina/o (15%). Participants’ represented a wide range of

departments from Biological Sciences to Spanish and Portuguese.

Participant responses were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis.

Maximum-likelihood factoring was used to extract factors, followed by a direct oblimin

rotation to obtain a simple structure and improve the interpretability of the initial

solution. An oblique rotation was used, as it was expected social recategorization and

decategorization factors would be correlated.

A scree test and a parallel analysis suggested two meaningful factors. Regarding

identification of the rotated factors, an item was considered unidimensional (loading on

145
only one factor between -1 and +1), if the pattern and structure coefficients were greater

than .40 for that factor. From this criterion, three items were deleted.

The remaining six items were then re-investigated with exploratory factor analysis

for a final time and the same factors remained. Three items loaded on the first factor and

three items loaded on the second factor. All items appeared to load on its projected

factor. As a result, factor one was labeled Social Recategorization and factor two was

labeled Social Decategorization. Based on these six items the initial eigenvalues and

percentage of variance explained were 2.197 and 36.62% for Recategorization and 1.389

and 23.16% for Decategorization. The pattern and structure matrices from the direct

oblimin model are presented in Table 15.

Table 16
Rotated Pattern and Structure Matrices for Responses to the Social Re(De)Categorization Scale

Factor 1 – SR Factor 2 - SD
Social Re(De)categorization Item
Pattern Structure Pattern Structure

SR 1. Despite the different groups around campus, there is .767 777 .038 .237
frequently the sense that we are all just one group.
SR 2. Although there are different groups of students on campus, .654 .631 -.087 .083
it feels as though we are all playing for the same team.
SR 3. I tend to feel that we are all the same even though there are .683 .697 .053 .231
different groups of students on campus.

SD 1. It is easy for me to see students as just people rather than as .159 .268 .417 .458
members of a particular group.
SD 2. I tend to first see another student on campus as a member -.073 .130 .780 .761
of a group rather than as an individual.
SD 3. It is difficult for me to see students on campus as members -.024 .085 .417 .411
of a particular group rather than individuals.

Note: SR indicates Social Recategorization and SD indicates Social Decategorization. Scale items were
renumbered for ease of presentation.

Reliability was assessed via estimates of the internal consistency of scores for

each factor of the Social Re(De)categorization scale. Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for

146
the 6-item scale were .74 and .55, respectively, for the Social Recategorization and Social

Decategorization subscales. Due to the responses on the Social Decategorization

subscale failing to reach a desirable alpha of .70, or at least .60, as well as two of the

subscale items having low pattern and structural coefficients, the two items that were

predicted to measure social decategorization but were dropped during the factor analysis

procedure above will be modified and reinvestigated during Study A. Incorporating these

modified items will hopefully improve the factor structure and internal consistency of this

subscale, which is presented in Appendix E.

147
 APPENDIX E: SOCIAL RE(DE)CATEGORIZATION SCALE

Directions:
The following statements inquire about your perception of the student body here at The University of
Texas at Austin. Below, please indicate the extent you agree with each statement.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree
1. On campus, it usually feels as though
we are individuals and not members of
O O O O O
particular groups.

2. Majority of the time, I have a hard

time feeling a common bond with
O O O O O
someone from a different group.

3. Despite the different groups around

campus, there is frequently the sense
O O O O O
that we are all just one group.

4. I tend to first see another student on

campus as a member of a group rather
O O O O O
than as an individual.

5. Although there are different groups of

students on campus, it feels as though
O O O O O
we are all playing for the same team.

6. It is difficult for me to see students on

campus as members of a particular
O O O O O
group rather than individuals.

7. Around campus, it usually feels as

though we belong to different groups. O O O O O

8. I tend to feel that we are all the same

even though there are different groups
O O O O O
of students on campus.

9. It is easy for me to see students as just

people rather than as members of a
O O O O O
particular group.

Note: Items 2, 4, and 7 were reverse scored; Items 2, 3, 5, and 8 are recategorization subscale items; Items 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9
are decategorization subscale items. Items 1, 2, and 7 are the modified items from the pilot study results.

148
 APPENDIX F: SYMBOLIC RACISM 2000 SCALE (SR2K)

Directions:
Please indicate your response to the following questions. As noted on the consent form, your results are completely
anonymous.
1. It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if Blacks would only try harder they could be just as
well off as Whites.
O strongly agree
O somewhat agree
O somewhat disagree
O strongly disagree
2. Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should
do the same.
O strongly agree
O somewhat agree
O somewhat disagree
O strongly disagree
3. Some say that Black leaders have been trying to push too fast. Others feel they haven’t pushed fast enough.
What do you think?
O trying to push too fast
O moving at about the right speed
O going too slowly
4. How much of the racial tension that exists in the United States today do you think Blacks are responsible for
creating?
O all of it
O most
O some
O not much at all
5. How much discrimination against Blacks do you feel there is in the United States today, limiting their chances
to get ahead?
O a lot
O some
O just a little
O none at all
6. Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for Blacks to work
their way out of the lower class.
O strongly agree
O somewhat agree
O somewhat disagree
O strongly disagree
7. Over the past few years, Blacks have gotten less than they deserve.
O strongly agree
O somewhat agree
O somewhat disagree
O strongly disagree
8. Over the past few years, Blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve.
O strongly agree
O somewhat agree
O somewhat disagree
O strongly disagree

Note: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 were reverse scored.

149
 APPENDIX G: WHITE PRIVILEGE SCALE (WPS)

Directions:
Please indicate the extent you agree with each statement below.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree
1. White people have certain advantages
that minorities do not have in this
O O O O O
society.

2. My status as a White person grants me

unearned privileges in today’s society. O O O O O

3. I feel that White skin in the United

States opens many doors for Whites
O O O O O
during their everyday lives.

4. I do not feel that White people have

any benefits or privileges due to their
O O O O O
race.

5. My skin color is an asset to me in my

everyday life. O O O O O

Note: Item 4 was reverse scored.

150
 APPENDIX H: WHITE PRIVILEGE ARTICLE

Daily effects of white privilege

I decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of the daily effects of white privilege in my
life. I have chosen those conditions that I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin-color privilege
than to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographic location, though of course all these other factors are
intricately intertwined. As far as I can tell, my African American coworkers, friends, and acquaintances
with whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place and time of work cannot
count on most of these conditions.

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to
mistrust my kind or me.
3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area, which I
can afford and in which I would want to live.
4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or
harassed.
6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely
represented.
7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my
color made it what it is.
8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their
race.
9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my
race.
11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is
the only member of his/her race.
12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a
supermarket and find the staple foods, which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's
shop and find someone who can cut my hair.
13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the
appearance of financial reliability.
14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.
15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical
protection.
16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school
and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their
race.
17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.
18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute
these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.
19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.
20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's
majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without
being seen as a cultural outsider.
24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my
race.
151
25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled
out because of my race.
26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's
magazines featuring people of my race.
27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather
than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.
28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize
her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.
29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program
centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my
colleagues disagree with me.
30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me
more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.
31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or
disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected
from negative consequences of any of these choices.
32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other
races.
33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on
my race.
34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.
35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job
suspect that I got it because of my race.
36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation
whether it had racial overtones.
37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about
my next steps, professionally.
38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking
whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.
39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.
40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be
mistreated in the places I have chosen.
41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.
42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to
my race.
43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.
44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions, which give attention only to people of my race.
45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.
46. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my
skin.
47. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who
deal with us.

152
 REFERENCES

Acuña, R. F. (2007). Occupied America: A history of Chicanos (6th ed.). New York:

Longman.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

American Anthropological Association (1998). AAA Statement on “Race”. Retrieved

August 3rd, 2008 from the American Anthropological Association (AAA)

Website: http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/AAA-Statement-on-

Race.cfm.

Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2005). Changing prejudice: The effects of persuasion

on implicit and explicit forms of race bias. In M. C. Green & T. C. Brock (Eds.),

Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed, pp. 249-280).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ancis, J. R., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Awareness of White privilege among White

counseling trainees. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 548-569.

Anderson, R. C. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational

Researcher, 13, 5-10.

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its

control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of

learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195).

New York: Academic Press.

153
Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2007). Structural modeling of generalized prejudice:

The role of social dominance, authoritarianism, and empathy. Journal of

Individual Differences, 28, 10-17.

Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and

empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 125-143.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-

report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27-

45.

Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis (Technical Report #70).

Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University, Center for Research in the

Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR).

Banton, M. (1997). Ethnic and racial consciousness. Harlow, UK: Addison-Wesley

Longman.

Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American

Psychologist, 54, 462-479.

Barth, P. (2003). A common core curriculum for the new century. Thinking K-16, 7, 2-31.

Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Consciousness, free choice, and

automaticity. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. X, pp.

75-81). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Bendick, M. Jr., Jackson, C., & Reinoso, V. (1994). Measuring employment

discrimination through controlled experiments. Review of Black Political

Economy, 23, 25-48.

154
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more than Lakisha and

Jamal? A field experiment evidence on labor market discrimination. The

American Economic Review. 94. 991-1013.

Blair, I. V., & Banaji, M. R. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype

priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1142-1163.

Blank, R. M., Dabady, M., & Citro, C. F. (Eds.). (2004). Measuring Racial

Discrimination (Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and

Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council). Washington, DC:

National Academies Press.

Bobo, L., & Kluegel, J. (1993). Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification

ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58, 443-464.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001). White supremacy and racism in the post-civil rights era.

Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2007). Who leaves?

Teacher attrition and student achievement. Albany, NY: Teacher Policy

Research.

Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Schiffhauer, K. (2007). Racial attitudes in

response to thoughts of White privilege. European Journal of Social Psychology,

37, 203-215.

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?

Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429-444.

155
Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske,

G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th edition, pp. 554-594),

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Brown, K., & Ryan, R. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-

848.

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical

foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211-

237.

California Newsreel (2003). Race – The power of an illusion. Episode III: The house we

live in [Film Transcript]. Retrieved from California Newsreel Web site:

http://www.newsreel.org/transcripts/race3.htm.

Campbell, D. T. (1971). White attitudes toward Black people. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute

for Social Research.

Chang, M. J. (2002). The impact of an undergraduate diversity course requirement on

students’ racial views and attitudes. The Journal of General Education, 51, 21-42.

Chappell, D. W. (2003). Principles of Buddhist social mindfulness. In K. H. Dockett, G.

R. Dudley-Grant, & C. P. Bankart (Eds.), Psychology and Buddhism: From

individual to global community (pp. 259-274). New York: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Charles, C. Z. (2003). The dynamics of racial residential segregation. Annual Review of

156
 Sociology, 29. 167-207.

Cliffordson, C. (2002). The hierarchical structure of empathy: Dimensional organization

and relations to structural functioning. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43,

49–59.

Corcoran, M. (1995). Rags to rags: Poverty and mobility in the United States. Annual

Review of Sociology, 21, 237-267.

Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C., Wittenbrink, B. (2002). The police officer’s dilemma:

Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1314-1329.

Dasgupta, N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes:

Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 800–814.

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.

JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

Deikman, A. J. (2000). A functional approach to mysticism. Journal of Consciousness

Studies, 7, 75-91.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled

components. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 443-451.

Devine, P. G. (2001). Implicit prejudice and stereotyping: How automatic are they?

Introduction to the special section. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

81, 757-759.

157
Devine, P. G., & Monteith, M. J. (1993). The role of discrepancy associated affect in

prejudice reduction. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition,

and stereotyping: Interactive processes in intergroup perception (pp. 317–344).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Devine, P. G., & Monteith, M. J. (1999). Automaticity and control in stereotyping. In S.

Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 339–

360). New York: Guilford Press.

Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S. L. (2002).

The regulation of explicit and subconscious race bias: The role of motivations to

respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,

835-848.

Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 88, 447-466.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The

causes, consequences, and challenges of aversive racism. In J. Eberhardt & S. T.

Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 3-32).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup

biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 101-105.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past,

present, and the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 5-21.

158
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Reducing contemporary

prejudice: Combating explicit and implicit bias at the individual and intergroup

level. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 137-163).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. (1997). On the

nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 33, 510-540.

Du Bois, W. E. B. (1901). The Freedmen's Bureau. Atlantic Monthly, 87, 354-365.

Dunton, B. C., & Fazio, R. H. (1997). An individual difference measure of motivation to

control prejudiced reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 316-

326.

Education Trust (2003a). African American achievement in America. Washington, DC:

The Education Trust. Retrieved August 8th, 2008 from The Education Trust Web

site: http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Product+Catalog/Fact+Sheets.

Education Trust (2003b). Latino achievement in America. Washington, DC: The

Education Trust. Retrieved August 8th, 2008 from The Education Trust Web site:

http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Product+Catalog/Fact+Sheets.

Emavardhana, T., & Tori, C. D. (1997). Changes in self-concept, ego defense

mechanisms, and religiosity following seven-day Vipassana meditation retreats.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 194-206.

159
Esses, V. M. & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determine willingness to

engage in intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,

1202-1214.

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and

attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group

conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699-724.

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Hodson, G. (2005). Instrumental relations

among groups: Group competition, conflict, and prejudice. In J. F. Dovidio, P.

Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after

Allport (pp. 36-53). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in

automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide

pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229-238.

Fazio, R., & Olson, M. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their

meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327.

Filardo, M., Vincent, J. M., Sung, P., & Stein, T. (2006). Growth and disparity: A decade

of U.S. public school construction. Washington, DC: Building Education Success

Together – BEST.

Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of

empathy on racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1720-1737.

160
Fiske, S.E. (2005). Social cognition and the normality of prejudgment. In J. F. Dovidio,

P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after

Allport (pp. 36-53). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Flippen, C. (2004). Unequal returns to housing investments? A study of real housing

appreciation among Black, White, and Hispanic households. Social Forces, 82,

1523-1551.

Frankenberg, E., Lee, C., & Orfield, G. (2003). A multiracial society with segregated

schools: Are we losing the dream? Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project of

Harvard University.

Franklin, J. H., & Moss, A. A. (2000). From slavery to freedom: A history

of African Americans (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1977). The subtlety of White racism, arousal, and

helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 691-707.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio &

S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89). New

York: Academic Press.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup

identity model. Ann Arbor, MI: Sheridan Books.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). Understanding and addressing contemporary

racism: From aversive racism to the Common Ingroup Identity Model. Journal of

Social Issues, 61, 615-639.

161
Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1994).

The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing

intergroup bias. Small Groups Research, 25, 224-249.

Gawronski, B., Strack, F., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2008). Attitudes and cognitive

consistency: The role of associative and propositional processes. In R. E. Petty, R.

H. Fazio, & P, Briñol (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures

(pp. 85-117). New York: Psychology Press.

Goldstein, J. (2002). One dharma: The emerging Western Buddhism. New York:

HarperCollins Publishers.

Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual

differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.

Greenwald, A. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2001). Health of the Implicit Association Test at age

3. Zeitschrift fuer Experimentelle Psychologie [Journal of Experimental

Psychology], 48, 85-93.

Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the

Implicit Association Test: 1. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.

Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress

reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic

Research, 57, 35-43.

162
Gunaratana, B. H. (1992). Mindfulness in plain English. Somerville, MA: Wisdom

Publications.

Hanh, T. N. (1975). The miracle of mindfulness. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Hanson, J., & Hanson, K. (2006). The blame frame: Justifying (racial) injustice in

America. Harvard Civil Rights - Civil Liberties Law Review, 41, 413-480.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment

therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford

Press.

Henkel, K. E., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Institutional discrimination,

individual racism, and Hurricane Katrina. Analyses of Social Issues and Public

Policy, 6, 99-124.

Henry, P. J., & Sears, D. O. (2002). The Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale. Political

Psychology, 23, 253-283.

Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Goldman, B. M., Davis,

P. J., & Cascio, E. V. (2008). Mindfulness as a means of reducing aggressive

behavior: Dispositional and situational evidence. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 486-

496.

Hertz, T. (2005). Rags, riches, and race: The intergenerational economic mobility of

Black and White families in the United States. In S. Bowles, H. Gintis, and M. O.

Groves (Eds.), Unequal chances: Family background and economic success (pp.

165-191). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Hertz, T. (2006). Understanding mobility in America. Washington, D.C.: Center for

163
 American Progress.

Hodgins, H., & Knee, C. R. (2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In E.

L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self determination research (pp. 87 –

100). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity

to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–

453.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation

Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Isaacs, J. B. (2007). Economic mobility of Black and White families. In J.B. Isaacs, I.

Sawhill, and R. Haskins (Eds.), Getting ahead or losing ground: Economic

mobility in America (pp 71-80). Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Jackson, K. T. (1985). Crabgrass frontier: The suburbanization of the United States.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, P. (1999) Reflections on critical White(ness) studies. In T. Nakayama and N.

Martin (Eds.), Whiteness: the communication of social identity (pp. 1-9).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jost, J.T., & Banaji, M. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the

production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 1-27.

164
Kabat-Zinn J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain

patients based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical

considerations and preliminary results. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4, 33-47.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go there you are: mindfulness meditation in

everyday life. New York: Hyperion.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and

future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144-156.

Kaplan, J., & Valls, A. (2007). Housing discrimination as a basis for Black reparations.

Public Affairs Quarterly, 21, 255-273.

Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict:

Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905.

Katznelson, I. (2005). When affirmative action was White: An untold story of racial

inequality in twentieth-century America. New York: W. W. Norton & Company,

Inc.

Kawakami, K., Dion, K. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1998). Racial prejudice and stereotype

activation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 407–416.

Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J. F., Moll, J., Hermsen, S., & Russin, A. (2000). Just say no (to

stereotyping): Effect of training in the negation of stereotypic associations on

stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 871-888.

Kearney, M. (2006). Intergenerational mobility for women and minorities in the United

States. The Future of Children, 16, 37-53.

165
Keith, T. Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kinder D. R., & Sanders L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic

ideals. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Kinder, D., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial

threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414-

431.

Klarman, M. J. (2004). From Jim Crow to civil rights: The Supreme Court and the

struggle for racial equality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kohler, W. (1959). Gestalt psychology today. American Psychologist, 14, 727-734.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown

Publishers, Inc.

Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Langer, E. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Langer, E. (2000). Mindful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9,

220-223.

Langer, E., Bashner, R., & Chanowitz, B. (1985). Decreasing prejudice by increasing

discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 113-120.

Langer, E., Hatem, M., Joss, J., & Howell, M. (1989). Conditional teaching and mindful

learning: The role of uncertainty in education. Creativity Research Journal, 2,

139-150.

Langer, E., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). The construct of mindfulness. Journal of Social

Issues, 56, 1-9.

166
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The Social

Connectedness and the Social Assurance scales. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 42, 232–241.

LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic

attitudes and group behavior. New York: Wiley.

Lillis, J., & Hayes, S. C. (2007). Applying acceptance, mindfulness, and values to the

reduction of prejudice: A pilot study. Behavior Modification, 31, 389-411.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Linehan, M. M. (1993), Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality

disorder. New York: Guilford Press.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not

to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation

Modeling, 9, 151-173.

Mace, C. (2008). Mindfulness and mental health: Therapy, theory, and science. New

York: Routledge.

Manglitz, E., Johnson-Bailey, J., & Cervero, R. M. (2005). Struggles of hope: How

White adult educators challenge racism. Teachers College Record, 107, 1245-

1274.

McBrier, D. B., & Wilson, G. (2004). Going down? Race and downward occupational

mobility for White-collar workers in the 1990s. Work and Occupations, 31, 283-

322.

167
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale.

In J. E Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism

(pp. 91-125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

McConnell, A. R., & Liebold, J. M. (2001). Relations between the Implicit Association

Test, explicit racial attitudes, and discriminatory behavior. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 435–442.

McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and

Freedom, July/August, 10-12.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, C. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our

capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Miller, J. (1995). Meditating teachers. Inquiring Mind, 12, 19-22.

Miller, J. P., & Nozawa, A. (2002). Meditating teachers: A qualitative study. Journal of

In-Service Education, 28, 179-192.

Monteith, M. J., Ashburn-Nardo, L., Voils, C. I., & Czopp, A. M. (2002). Putting the

brakes on prejudice: On the development and operation of cues for control.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1029–1050.

Moody, J. (2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America.

American Journal of Sociology, 107, 679-716.

168
Nazroo, J. Y. (2003). The structuring of ethnic inequalities in health: Economic position,

racial discrimination, and racism. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 277-

284.

Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R., & Greenwald, A.G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group

attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration website. Group Dynamics, 6, 101-115.

Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test

at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In J. A. Bargh (Ed.),

Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior (pp. 265-292). New York:

Psychology Press.

Orr, D. (2002). The uses of mindfulness in ant-oppressive pedagogies: Philosophy and

praxis. Canadian Journal of Education, 27, 477-490.

Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108,

937-975.

Pedersen, A., Walker, I., & Wise. M. (2005). “Talk does not cook rice”: Beyond anti-

racism rhetoric to strategies for social action. Australian Psychologist, 40, 20-30.

Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority

students are shortchanged on teacher quality. Washington, D.C.: The Education

Trust. Retrieved July 16, 2008 from The Education Trust Web site:

http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/010DBD9F-CED8-4D2B-9E0D-

91B446746ED3/0/TQReportJune2006.pdf.

Pettigrew, T.F., & Meertens, R.W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western

Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology 25, 57-75.

169
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.

Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Pierce, C., Carew, J., Pierce-Gonzalez, D., & Willis, D. (1978). An experiment in racism:

TV commercials. In C. Pierce (Ed.), Television and Education (pp. 62–88).

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Pincus, F. L. (2002). The social construction of reverse discrimination: The impact of

affirmative action on Whites. The Journal of Intergroup relations, 28, 33-34.

Quillian, L. (2006). New approaches to understanding racial prejudice and

discrimination. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 299-328.

Riskin, L. L. (2004). Mindfulness: Foundational training for dispute resolution. Journal

of Legal Education, 54, 79-90.

Rivera, A., Cotto-Escalera, B., Anisha, D., Huezo, J., & Muhammad, D. (2008).

Foreclosed: State of the dream 2008. Boston, MA: United for a Fair Economy.

Rowe, W., Bennett, S. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (1994). White racial identity models: A

critique and alternative proposal. The Counseling Psychologist, 22, 129–146.

Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three

modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. L. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in

cognition (pp. 37-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness

in learning and transfer. In E. De Corte (Ed.), International Journal of Education

170
 Research, Acquisition and Transfer of Knowledge and Cognitive Skills (pp. 623-

637). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997). Racial attitudes in America:

Trends and interpretations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.). Eliminating

racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 53-84). New York: Plenum.

Shapiro, T. (2005). The hidden cost of being African American: How wealth perpetuates

inequality. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Shapiro, S. L., Brown, K., Biegel, G. (2007). Self-care for health care professionals:

Effects of MBSR on mental well being of counseling psychology students.

Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 1, 105–115.

Shapiro, S. L., Schwartz, G. E., & Bonner, G. (1998). Effects of Mindfulness-Based

Stress Reduction on medical and premedical students. Journal of Behavioral

Medicine, 21, 581-599.

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1988). The

Robbers Cave experiment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Middletown, CT:

Wesleyan University Press.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social

hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sidanious, J. H., & Veniegas, R. C. (2000). Gender and race discrimination: The

interactive nature of disadvantage. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and

discrimination (pp 47-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

171
Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial

microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African

American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 60–73.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test

performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 69, 797-811.

Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup

relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 729-744.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S.

Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp 47-69). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K.

L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications

for counseling. American Psychologist, 62, 271-286.

Swim, J. K., & Miller, D. L. (1999). White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for

attitudes toward affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

25, 500–514.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H.

Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61-98). New York:

Academic Press.

172
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.

Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.

33-48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tatum, B. D. (1994). Teaching White students about racism: The search for White allies

and the restoration of hope. Teacher College Record, 95, 462-476.

Taylor, M. C. (2000). Social contextual strategies for reducing racial discrimination. In S.

Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp 71-99). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., Ridgeway, V. A., Soulsby, J. M., & Lau,

M. A. (2000). Prevention of relapse/recurrence in major depression by

mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 68, 615–623.

Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Differential relationships between intergroup

contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1145-1158.

Turner, M. A., Ross, S. L., Galster, G. C., & Yinger, J. (2002). Discrimination in

metropolitan housing markets: National results from phase I of HDS2000.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory

of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (pp. 77-

122), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Vacarr, B. (2003). Moving beyond polite correctness: Practicing mindfulness in the

173
 diverse classroom. In A. Howell & F. Tuitt (Eds.), Race and higher education:

Rethinking pedagogy in diverse college classrooms (pp. 129-137). Cambridge,

MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Wildman, S. M., & Davis, A. D. (1997). Making systems of privilege visible. In R.

Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical White studies: Looking behind the mirror

(pp. 314-319). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Wilson, J. (1998). The Earth shall weep: A history of Native America. New York: Grove

Press.

Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1997). Evidence for racial prejudice at the

implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 262-274.

Yinger, J. (1993). Access denied, access constrained: Results and implications of the

1989 housing discrimination study. In M. Fix and R. J. Struyk (Eds.), Clear and

convincing evidence. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Corneille, O. (2005). Cognitive process: Reality constraints and

integrity concerns in social perception. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. Rudman

(Eds.), Reflecting on the nature of prejudice (pp. 175-191). London, UK:

Blackwell.

174
 VITA

John Vincent Kucsera, Jr. received a degree of Bachelor of Arts from the

University of Texas at Austin in 2001. Following, he spent some time as a mental health

counselor, crisis specialist, and then found his home as a special education teacher and

diversity trainer. John then returned to the University of Texas at Austin to pursue

advanced degrees in Educational Psychology; he received a Master of Arts in 2006. His

research and teaching interests center on teaching effectiveness and educational programs

for social equality. John considers himself racially prejudiced, and tries to mindfully

regulate and counter such attitudes daily. He hopes to continue to influence growth, on

paper or in person, small or large, for himself or for others.

Permanent Address: 6104 Laird Drive, Austin, Texas 78705

This manuscript was typed by the author.

175