Conditionally Accepted
Conditionally Accepted
Abstract
How we measure racial bias matters. Previous literature demonstrates that direct questioning leads to unreliable responses. Scholars have thus developed a number of techniques to uncover racial bias without cuing a defensive response. I investigate the performance of text and image-based factorial experiments in the case of racial motivation for opposition to new housing development relative to a more traditional list experiment. My results demonstrate that these often used methods yield substantially different conclusions about the importance of racial biases in opposition to new housing construction. While the factorial experiments suggest little evidence of racial bias, the more traditional list experiment reveals that the potential for racial change in their neighborhood is a concern for a meaningful share of respondents.
Benefit or Backlash? Examining the Consequences of Expanding Definitions of Prejudice
Abstract
Definitions of prejudice have expanded in recent political discourse, yet the downstream consequences remain unclear. This paper develops a theory of backlash to expanding defini- tions, arguing that when individuals encounter allegations they feel are exaggerated or false, they become more skeptical of subsequent allegations and less concerned about the relevant form of prejudice. We test this in the context of antisemitism in the U.S., using an original survey experiment (N = 5,110) exposing respondents to an allegation labeling a pro-Palestinian protest as antisemitic. Exposure reduces belief in the validity of a subsequent allegation and lowers assessments of antisemitism’s severity in society, supporting a backlash interpretation. These effects appear driven largely by a motivated reasoning process aimed at protecting moral self-image. While our empirical focus is antisemitism, the theory and results are broadly significant for scholars of racism and practitioners engaged in definitional debates over what constitutes prejudice.