Racial Segregation and Its Effects on Intergroup Cognition

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2018The United States’ racial landscape continues to be marred by pervasive patterns of structural segregation. In other words, our societal structure—that is, the patterns of relationships between entities within society and the arrangement of groups within society—continues to reflect the separation of Black and White individuals. Why have these patterns of structural segregation persisted over legal, economic, attitudinal and cultural shifts? What are the forces working to stagnate change? In this dissertation, I aim to shed light on processes that play a role in impeding progress towards a more integrated and accepting racial landscape. My research focuses on one set of perceptions, which prior research has established as important for maintaining the current racial landscape—people’s perceptions of other individual’s racial attitudes (for brief review see: Shelton & Richeson, 2006), and the factors that shape these perceptions. More specifically, I posit that the patterns of structural segregation in our society augment, and even instill the perception that other individuals prefer same-race to cross-race peers. To build towards this assertion, I draw on a sociocultural framework, which conceptualizes the relation between individuals and the surrounding cultural context. I then present data from three manuscripts, on the effects of structural segregation on children and adults perceptions of others’ racial attitudes. Paper 1 investigated the impacts of observing patterns of structural segregation in others’ friendship networks on 4- to 6-year-old children’s perceptions of who should and will be friends. Paper 2 focused on how patterns of structural segregation within schools influence 7- to 10-year-old children’s perceptions of others’ racial attitudes. Finally, Paper 3 focused on patterns of structural segregation within neighborhoods, and their effect on adults’ perceptions of others’ racial attitudes. Together, this dissertation provides insight into the ways in which people normalize and understand patterns of structural segregation. By shedding light on this process, we can hopefully gain a more holistic understanding of why progress towards a more racially egalitarian and integrated landscape is slower than what we might expect

Unpacking the Mascot Debate: Native American Identification Predicts Opposition to Native Mascots

While major organizations representing Native Americans (e.g., National Congress of American Indians, n.d.) contend that Native mascots are stereotypical and dehumanizing, sports teams with Native mascots cite polls claiming their mascots are not offensive to Native people (Vargas, 2019). We conducted a large-scale, empirical study to provide a valid and generalizable understanding of Native Americans’ (N=1021) attitudes toward Native mascots. Building on the identity centrality literature, we examined how multiple aspects of Native identification uniquely shaped attitudes towards mascots. While Native Americans in our sample generally opposed Native mascots, especially the Redskins, attitudes varied according to demographic characteristics (e.g., age, political orientation, education) and the strength of participants’ racial-ethnic identification. Specifically, stronger Native identification (behavioral engagement and identity centrality) predicted greater opposition. Results highlight the importance of considering the unique and multifaceted aspects of identity, particularly when seeking to understand Native people’s attitudes and experiences

Erasing and dehumanizing Natives to protect positive national identity: The Native mascot example

For individuals who view being American as central to their sense of self, the reality of Native oppression (e.g., genocide, police brutality) threatens their ability to maintain a positive national identity. We theorize that long‐standing narratives in American culture erase and dehumanize Natives, enabling non‐Natives to psychological distance and justify Native oppression as a means of protecting positive national identity. We illustrate this protective process using the example of Native mascots. We first demonstrate that Native mascots erase and dehumanize Natives and then illustrate how the use of Native mascots protects national identity. We conclude by calling for individual‐ and institutional‐level changes to create a society free of harmful and toxic narratives and the practices that perpetuate these narratives.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170309/1/spc312632_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170309/2/spc312632.pd

White Opposition to Native American Sovereignty

Since first contact with Europeans, Native American nations have strived to maintain and strengthen their sovereignty. Yet, non-Native individuals and groups, as well as federal, state, and local governments, continue to challenge this sovereignty. Despite the critical importance of sovereignty, the only academic study focused on U.S. public attitudes toward Native nation sovereignty predated the rise of Native nation gaming and relied on samples from three universities. In our study, we surveyed over 2000 White Americans from across the United States to examine attitudes toward Native nation sovereignty. Of the many factors that may influence these attitudes, we focused on three: belief in the casino Indian stereotype, the perception that Native American interests conflict with the interests of Whites, and the presence of Native nation gaming in participants\u27 states. We find two significant models predicting attitudes towards Native nation sovereignty. First, greater endorsement of the casino Indian stereotype is associated with more negative attitudes toward Native nation sovereignty. This relationship is explained, at least in part, by the perception that Native American interests conflict with the interests of Whites. That is, the more White participants endorsed the casino Indian sterereotype, the more apt they were to believe that their interests conflict with Native Americans, which in turn is related to more negative attitudes towards Native nation sovereignty. The second model revealed that the presence of Native nation gaming in the participant\u27s state has important indirect implications for attitudes towards Native nation sovereignty. Specifically, White participants living in states with Native nation gaming are more likely to endorse the casino Indian stereotype, which is related to greater perceived conflict of interest with Native Americans, and, ultimately perceived conflict of interest is associated with more negative attitudes toward Native nation sovereignty. We situate our findings relative to group position theory and discuss practical implications for Native nation sovereignty

PIMMS: Protocol Inventory ManageMent System

Development page of PIMMS, product of SIPS 2016

Broadening the model of science - Recognizing different types of contributions

Resources for Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (2016) Meeting - Diversity & Alternative Contribution