Regional and national racial attitude differences stem from norms, not personality

Evidence

Perhaps the most radical development since Allport concerns his moral evaluation of conformity. Although Allport considered conformity to be a sign of deviance, that stance is no longer held by social psychologists. In fact, conformity is now seen as perhaps the most important normal social process. In 1954, Allport needed to explain why a person might not actively seek individual expression as a weakness of the soul or spirit. Shortly after Allport’s book appeared, however, one of his students, Thomas Pettigrew, embarked on a decades-long program of research on normative theory and prejudice. Pettigrew looked at white racial attitudes in the American South and apartheid-era Republic of South Africa (Pettigrew, 1958, 1959). He showed that differences in authoritarian personality could not account for the large regional differences in racial attitudes between North and South in the USA, nor the large national differences in attitudes between the USA, Europe, and South Africa. Instead, Pettigrew has focused on how historical, political, and social factors shape social norms, which in turn play a large role in determining racial attitudes, social policy, and interpersonal conduct (Pettigrew, 1991). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1896 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The growing complexity and subtlety of racial attitudes and beliefs, which the ideology of bounded racial change clearly reflects, derives from a social context still characterized by considerable black-white economic inequality, limited black political empowerment, extensive residential segregation by race, other historical trends, and the influence of enduring cultural values and beliefs. At the individual level, a number of social-psychological factors contribute to adherence to this ideology, especially a concern with group position that enters public opinion as perceptions of incompatible group interests, feelings of fraternal deprivation, and perceived threats posed by the black political actors who have pressured for social and political change. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3437 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Southern and non-Southern whites changed racial attitudes at equal rates — Ilyana Kuziemko and Ebonya Washington, Why Did the Democrats Lose the South?…, 319; Regional culture, not selection method, explains interstate differences in judge backgrounds; Regional racial differences defy personality-based explanations and track social norms instead (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Regional differences in racial attitudes exceed what personality can explain #corroborates (0.95) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1896
• Subtle racial attitudes stem from structural inequality plus perceived group threat #complicates (0.72) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3437