Read Part I here.
Let me make a few points about how the research I discussed in my first blog entry relates to Obama and his run for the presidency:
First, there seems to be a general pervasiveness to Whites' implicit anti-Black/pro-White bias. Though their general bias is most pronounced among conservatives, conservativism can and should be measured on a continuum. Thus, not surprisingly, there are fairly conservative Democrats who likely harbor this implicit anti-Black bias. Furthermore, it should be no surprise that those Whites who are likely to be the most conservative (e.g., older and less educated) have been voting for Clinton whereas those who are likely more liberal (e.g., younger and more educated) have been voting for Obama.
Second, the research on amygdala activation (e.g., elicitation of fear responses in Whites when images of Blacks are subliminally flashed) and implicit racial attitudes connects, interestingly, with political science research on racial threat. Here, some Whites' implicit negative reaction to Obama may be out of a fear of having a Black president and nay perceived baggage that may bring with it.
Third, people who support Clinton seem to make a big deal about her experience. I don't see it. Are they counting the years as First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the U.S., and a handful of years in the Senate? Objectively, she and Obama have roughly the same resumes at the federal level. I think the study from my prior blog entry on racial disparities in how employers review similar resumes, and Jerry Kang's insights about racial schemas, helps explain why Whites give Clinton more credit regarding experience than they do Obama
Fourth, in light of this research, generally, how do I make sense of the caucuses and primaries? Political science research and accounts of the Bradley, Dinkins, and Wilder elections give some hint as to what took place in Iowa in and New Hampshire. I sense that in Iowa, given that caucuses are conducted such that others are aware of your vote, Whites were less apt to be guided by implicit bias and vote for the White candidates, because they had to be publicly accountable for their votes. In the New Hampshire primary, no public accountability took place and thus no checking of implicit attitudes at the door. Additionally, part of what might explain New Hampshire is the noted study on exposure to liked (Black) and disliked (White) persons. Obama and Clinton were near polar opposites on the likeability spectrum, which may have abated some Whites implicit racial attitudes vis-à -vis he and Clinton. However, her noting during the New Hampshire debate that she was hurt by not being "liked" by voters and then tearing-up at the café, she served to humanize herself. In doing so, she may have unwittingly washed out the effect of this Black (liked)/White (disliked) contrast and its diminishing effect on Whites' implicit racial bias.
Lastly, what has likely gotten Obama this far among Whites is their efforts to check their implicit biases at the door when caucusing or voting during primaries. If South Carolina is any indication, however, he still has a long way to go. It seems that he may be able too broaden his appeal among White voters, but he is short on time. If Whites with egalitarian beliefs wanted to truly consider Obama's candidacy free of implicit racial bias, many could, but Obama's difficulty is that neither he nor his campaign can directly raise the issue of White "prejudice" dampening his votes among them. It would be nice if Whites knew their implicit racial biases (by taking the IAT) and then sought to square those biases with their professed, non-racist attitudes. In addition to various forms of external debiasing, I think this is the only way Obama truly has a shot at the presidency.
[NOTE: People do harbor implicit gender bias, but it does not seem to be as pronounced as implicit race bias. Though people tend to have implicit stereotypes about careers and gender, they also have a more favorable implicit attitude--generally--about women compared to men.]
But the economy and Iraq have ten months to "develop." How are middle-class and poor people going to feel about their economic situation after ten more months of shrinking jobs, housing prices and the stock market falling, etc.
What will people want in November? An old "white guy" who offers perpetual war, permanent tax cuts, a continuation of the past eight years, or a young, highly intelligent, black man who offers new ideas, hope, and an almost certain change from the past eight years.
I think people will want change from their situation and change from the news, even if Obama had never uttered the word change.
I would point out that we're not talking about generalized bias, here, but in biases regarding the selection of a "leader." Commonly held stereotypes regarding assertiveness/aggression will be at play in this decision and, while there *will* be resultant racial biases at play, the leadership focus will certainly flair up any overt or latent misogynist tendencies.
PS: To some of the commenters -- Geez, folks, lighten up! Mr Parks is making a generalized observation, hypothesis -- he is not personally attacking YOU or "all white people." And whether his comments apply to "you" or not, he does make some very valid points. Getting defensive doesn't make them any less valid.
Should I go back and sue for discrimination? It was related to the government, can I get 8 million dollars out of that? I could sure use the cash...and, final question, how much more of this bullshit goes on around our government offices in general? What a joke, what a racket.
Maybe I should get a lawyer and sue the government for 500 billion dollars or something.
This regional manager had been working there for a lot of years, I wonder how many millions he's siphoned out of there, by now.$$$$$$$$$$$.$$
There's bias against Obama for being black, and Clinton for being female. If this is news to anybody, you must have been living on another planet. I guess it takes an academic to tell us the obvious.
Coming off Super Tuesday, any honest read shows the two of them essentially tied in terms of results.
Let's keep going, and please - would all the victim-oriented whiners on BOTH sides please go find something else to do.
He's not an idiot. He knows that even if he alienates some people by explicitly invoking race he will win over many others by activating any pre-existing biases in their minds. ESPECIALLY with Edwards out of the race. It's more or less a 21st century southern strategy. Done by a Democrat, no less.
*at the very least, some of you should at least take the test and understand what Parks is saying: implicit.harvard.edu/
Did you check the 'implict bias' of 9/10 Blacks that voted for Obama?
I see what you are inferring - if they are more whites voting for Hillary than there is an implicit bias.
You can dress it up anyway you like, the truth is, Obama is NOT a strong candidate, whether he was green, black, polka dots, purple or candy-striped red.
What you are trying to do is implicitly give whites a 'guilty' trip by implicitly suggesting that it is racism that is keeping Obama from winning the presidency.
Have you ever tried to look at the other side of it? That if Obama　WASN'T Black, he would be so dead long ago.
Tell me ALL about it....psychology degree, playing the 'guilt' game. Grow up, and REALLY
challenge the candidates/pandidates on the issues. 9.2 trillion in red ink ain't gonna pay itself off. Screw these games.
Ron Paul! Huckabee gets honorable mention too for proposing to hang an 'out of business' sign on the IRS' front door. Too many games, too many scams, not enough honest effort.
Wouldn't you like to think that win or lose, Sen. Obama was judged as any other candidate?
I don't have that sense of Obama having been tested and wonder what kind of secrets will come out in the campaign once the Repugs start , much less keep it up over the course of a presidency and how he will hold up once they begin their campaign of hate.