A Comprehensive Test of How Group Stereotypes and Policy Goals Racialize Issues

• In Event: Nationalism and Conflict

Abstract

Dominant models of public opinion place group orientations as a primary cause of policy attitudes. Numerous studies have documented the role of group attitudes and stereotypes in shaping public opinion in specific domains. Yet, we have little in the way of a comprehensive theory or systematic evidence regarding why certain policies become racialized in the public mind while others do not. In this paper, we take a sociofunctional approach to group stereotypes, arguing that stereotypes offer goal-relevant information about how groups behave. This information is used by individuals to assess the racial relevance of public policies that aim to change behaviors or outcomes. For example, if a group is stereotyped as aggressive or violent, then harsh criminal justice policies will be perceived as particularly relevant to that group. Thus, the racial relevance of a policy is determined by the interaction between the specific stereotypes of the group and the goals of a policy.

We first develop and validate a measure of racial relevance that can be used across groups and policies. Next, we draw a large sample of policies from a larger population, which includes policies that have been previously classified as either race-targeted, racialized, or non-racial. Using a novel survey, we empirically test the racial relevance of each issue from our sample. Then, using a within-subjects design, we examine how group stereotypes influence perceptions of racial relevance across issues among White Americans, allowing us to test our argument that the match between group stereotypes and policy goals determines the racial relevance of a policy. Taken together, our project aims to provide a comprehensive theory and evidence as to which policies become racialized and why.

Authors

• Marques Zarate, Brown University

• Tanika Raychaudhuri, Rice University

• Scott Clifford, Texas A&M University