White guilt independently predicts affirmative action support beyond prejudice and ideology

Evidence

White guilt as an independent predictor. Controlling for all four measures of prejudice, White guilt significantly predicted attitudes toward affirmative action, r(96)= .39, p < .001. Furthermore, once we controlled for demographic information (gender, age), political orientation (dummy codes for affiliation with the Democratic and Republican parties and single-item self-identification measure), White privilege, and beliefs about the prevalence of discrimination in addition to the prejudice measures, White guilt still significantly predicted attitudes toward affirmative action, r(85) = .33, p = .001. — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt, 68

White guilt predicted attitudes toward affirmative action after removing the variance due to the two subscale measures of prejudice, r(359) = .50, p < .001, as well as removing the variance due to prejudice, gender, age, White privilege, beliefs about discrimination, and the two measures of political conservativism, r(306) = .30, p < .001. — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt, 121

Finally, results indicate that White guilt mediated the relationship from White privilege and beliefs about the prevalence of discrimination to attitudes toward affirmative action, and both White guilt and prejudice independently predicted attitudes toward affirmative action. — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt, 14

An alternative explanation as to why White guilt would result in favorable evaluations of affirmative action is the likely relationship between prejudice and White guilt. Lower levels of prejudice have been associated with more favorable attitudes toward affirmative action (Dovidio, Mann, & Gaertner, 1989; Jacobson, 1985; McConahay, 1986; Sears, 1988; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996). However, it is also possible that White guilt would predict attitudes toward affirmative action independent of its relationship to prejudice. As Katz (1991) argued, using racism as a simple explanation for lack of support for affirmative action may cause us to overlook other unidentified factors that may be equally if not more important in predicting attitudes toward affirmative action. — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt, 39

We also tested whether White guilt predicts attitudes toward affirmative action after controlling for political orientation. Similar to arguments indicating that unfavorable attitudes toward affirmative action are a function of conservative ideology and not prejudice (Sniderman & Tetlock, 1986), it is possible that the relationship between White guilt and attitudes toward affirmative action is a result of liberal ideology and not White guilt. — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt, 39

Controlling for all four measures of prejudice, White guilt significantly predicted attitudes toward affirmative action, r(96)= .39, p < .001. Furthermore, once we controlled for demographic information (gender, age), political orientation (dummy codes for affiliation with the Democratic and Republican parties and single-item self-identification measure), White privilege, and beliefs about the prevalence of discrimination in addition to the prejudice measures, White guilt still significantly predicted attitudes toward affirmative action, r(85) = .33, p = .001. — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt, 68

The three prejudice measures that were correlated with attitudes toward affirmative action remained significant after controlling for White guilt, r(99) = .33, –.24, and –.21, p < .001, p = .01, and p = .02, for the thermometer rating, Subtle Derogatory Beliefs, and Private Rights scales, respectively, and continued to predict attitudes toward affirmative action after controlling for all the other measures, including White guilt, r(88) = .19, –.17, –.16, p = .04, .05, and . for the thermometer rating, Subtle Derogatory Beliefs, and Private Rights scales, respectively. — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt, 70

Finally, White guilt had consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. White guilt mediated the relationship from beliefs about White privilege to attitudes toward affirmative action as well as the relationship between beliefs about the prevalence of discrimination and attitudes toward affirmative action. Both White guilt and prejudice independently predicted attitudes toward affirmative action and did so after controlling for political orientation as well as gender and the other measures used in Study 1. — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt, 80

The findings indicate that both White guilt and prejudice independently predicted evaluation of affirmative action programs for Blacks; however, the results were stronger for White guilt than for prejudice. Partial correlations revealed that White guilt predicted evaluations of affirmative action over and above prejudice, r(46) = .32, p = .01. Controlling for belief in White privilege, beliefs about discrimination, and prejudice resulted in a significant partial correlation, r(43) = .33, p = .01. Participants who were more prejudiced reported more negative evaluations of affirmative action for Blacks, r(49) = -.34, p = .02. This relationship was marginally significant when White guilt was controlled for in a partial correlation, r(49) = .26, p = .06. — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt, 103

Results again supported the independent role of White guilt in predicting attitudes toward affirmative action. White guilt predicted attitudes toward affirmative action after removing the variance due to the two subscale measures of prejudice, r(359) = .50, p < .001, as well as removing the variance due to prejudice, gender, age, White privilege, beliefs about discrimination, and the two measures of political conservativism, r(306) = .30, p < .001. — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt, 121

Categorization

• XREF: Strongest evidence that guilt — not just ideology or prejudice — carries policy attitudes; directly answers why some groups resist guilt induction. — connects to: White guilt mediates privilege’s effect on affirmative action attitudes but not discrimination beliefs’ effect. — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt: Its Antecedents and…, 102; Exposure to pervasive racism knowledge triggers and sustains White guilt — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt: Its Antecedents and…, 71; Guilt motivates corrective actions while shame triggers defensive reactions to inequality — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt: Its Antecedents and…, 137
• QUESTION: Whether guilt has incremental predictive validity beyond ideology/prejudice is exactly the test the reader is probing — what was the actual result?
• corroborated: 10 independent passages support this claim — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt: Its Antecedents and…, 68; Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt: Its Antecedents and…, 121; Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt: Its Antecedents and…, 14 (+4 more)

Related

• White guilt mediates privilege’s effect on affirmative action attitudes but not discrimination beliefs’ effect. (similarity 0.89)
• Beliefs about White privilege drive affirmative-action attitudes only through White guilt. (similarity 0.88)
• White privilege boosts affirmative-action support only through White guilt, while discrimination beliefs do not. (similarity 0.88)
• White guilt links to prejudice independent of political orientation (similarity 0.83)
• White shame rather than guilt may drive resistance to anti-racism efforts (similarity 0.82)
• White guilt correlates with belief in White privilege and anti-discrimination awareness (similarity 0.82)
• Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller — White Guilt Its Antecedents and Consequences for Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action (similarity 0.81)
• Exposure to pervasive racism knowledge triggers and sustains White guilt (similarity 0.79)