Here is the manuscript that I plan to present at the 2015 American Political Science Association conference in September: revised version here. The manuscript contains links to locations of the data; a file of the reproduction code for the revised manuscriptÂ is here.

Comments are welcome!

Abstract and the key figure are below:

Racial bias is a persistent concern in the United States, but polls have indicated that whites and blacks on average report very different perceptions of the extent and aggregate direction of this bias. Meta-analyses of results from a population of sixteen federally-funded survey experiments, many of which have never been reported on in a journal or academic book, indicate the presence of a moderate aggregate black bias against whites but no aggregate white bias against blacks.

I made a few changes since submitting the manuscript: [1] removing all cases in which the target was not black or white (e.g., Hispanics, Asians, control conditions in which the target did not have a race); [2] estimating meta-analyses without removing cases based on a racial manipulation check; and [3] estimating meta-analyses without the Cottrell and Neuberg 2004 survey experiment, given that that survey experiment was more about perceptions of racial groups instead of a test for racial bias against particular targets.

Numeric values in the figure are for a meta-analysis that reflects [1] above:

* For white respondents: the effect size point estimate was 0.039 (p=0.375), with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.047, 0.124].

* For black respondents: the effect size point estimate was 0.281 (p=0.016), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.053, 0.509].

---

The meta-analysis graph includes five studies for which a racial manipulation check was used to restrict the sample: Pager 2006, Rattan 2010, Stephens 2011, Pedulla 2011, and Powroznik 2014. Inferences from the meta-analysis were the same when these five studies included respondents who failed the racial manipulation checks:

* For white respondents: the effect size point estimate was 0.027 (p=0.499), with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.051, 0.105].

* For black respondents: the effect size point estimate was 0.268 (p=0.017), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.047, 0.488].

---

Inferences from the meta-analysis were the same when the Cottrell and Neuberg 2004 survey experiment was removed from the meta-analysis. For the residual 15 studies using the racial manipulation check restriction:

* For white respondents: the effect size point estimate was 0.063 (p=0.114), with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.015, 0.142].

* For black respondents: the effect size point estimate was 0.210 (p=0.010), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.050, 0.369].

---

For the residual 15 studies not using the racial manipulation check restriction:

* For white respondents: the effect size point estimate was 0.049 (p=0.174), with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.022, 0.121].

* For black respondents: the effect size point estimate was 0.194 (p=0.012), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.044, 0.345].