## Monthly Archives: March 2016

## Monkey Cage post on negative ethnocentrism

The post is here.

Data are here for the 2016 ANES pilot study and here for the 2012 ANES time series study.

Stata code for the 2016 ANES pilot study analysis is here.

Stata code for the 2012 ANES time series study analysis is here.

Note that the use of blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, feminists, transgender persons, and Muslims as the reference groups in the pilot study follows the use in the previous Monkey Cage post in white ethnocentrism.

---

To try to untangle the influence of attitudes about whites from attitudes about blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in predicting policy preferences, models were estimated for white respondents with the feeling thermometers for whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians entered separately, along with controls for sex, marital status, age, education, and household income. The feeling thermometers and the outcome variables were kept on an interval scale and were standardized. The data were weighted and were from the 2012 ANES time series study.

For support for more immigration, the point estimate for the standardized correlation of the Hispanic feeling thermometer was 0.22, and the point estimate for the standardized correlation of the white feeling thermometer was -0.24, indicating that attitudes about whites had roughly the same correlation as did attitudes about Hispanics: the more warm a white person feels toward Hispanics, the more immigration that person supports on average; and the more warm a white person feels toward whites, the less immigration that person supports on average.

For support for affirmative action for black students in university admissions, the point estimate for the standardized correlation of the black feeling thermometer was 0.28, and the point estimate for the standardized correlation of the white feeling thermometer was -0.12, indicating that attitudes about whites had roughly half of the correlation as did attitudes about blacks: the more warm a white person feels toward blacks, the more that person supports affirmative action in university admissions on average; and the more warm a white person feels toward whites, the less that person supports affirmative action in university admissions on average.

Stata code for the above analysis is here.

---

UPDATE (March 8, 2016)

Nathan Kalmoe asked about the results without the atypical groups for the white ethnocentrism measure. Results are below. Note that the phrase "oikophobic" refers to scores less than zero on an ethnocentrism scale, after the usage of Roger Scruton.

WHITES COMPARED TO ONLY BLACKS, HISPANICS, AND MUSLIMS

The percentage of white and nonwhite respondents on the negative side of the ethnocentrism scale is 21% and 48% (compared to 22% and 39% using the full set of six reference groups).

The range of candidate feeling thermometer scores for oikophobic whites is: Trump 22, Cruz 27, Carson 34, Fiorina 32, J Bush 33, Rubio 36, H Clinton 49, Obama 61, and Sanders 67.

The mean candidate feeling thermometer scores for nonwhites scoring less than zero are: Trump 24, Cruz 32, Carson 31, Fiorina 31, J Bush 32, Rubio 37, H Clinton 62, Obama 75, and Sanders 54.

The confidence intervals for oikophobic and ethnocentric whites on the black affirmative action item do not overlap and have a standardized difference of 0.55. The confidence intervals for oikophobic and ethnocentric whites on the immigration item do not overlap and have a standardized difference of 0.67.

WHITES COMPARED TO ONLY BLACKS AND HISPANICS

The percentage of white and nonwhite respondents on the negative end of the ethnocentrism scale is 29% and 60% (compared to 22% and 39% using the full set of six reference groups).

The range of candidate feeling thermometer scores for oikophobic whites is more muted for whites compared to using the full six reference groups or the black-Hispanic-Muslim set of reference groups: 32 for Trump, 36 for Cruz, 42 for Carson, 38 for Fiorina, 35 for J Bush, 42 for Rubio, 40 for H Clinton, 48 for Obama, and 54 for Sanders. The 95% confidence interval for Trump is [26, 37], which doesn't overlap with Obama or Sanders but overlaps with H Clinton [34, 45].

The range of candidate feeling thermometer scores is still fairly large for nonwhites scoring less than zero: 24 for Trump, 35 for Cruz, 34 for Fiorina, 33 for J Bush, 39 for Rubio, 62 for H Clinton, 73 for Obama, and 52 for Sanders. The 95% confidence interval for Trump is [18, 31], which doesn't overlap with Rubio, H Clinton, Obama, or Sanders, and is near the left edge of the confidence intervals for the remaining candidates (whose left edge confidence interval is either 29 or 30).

The difference between oikophobic and ethnocentric whites on the immigration item is still substantive: 0.65 standard deviations, with no confidence interval overlap.

The difference between oikophobic and ethnocentric whites on the item about affirmative action for blacks in university admissions is 0.56 on the 6-point scale (about 0.29 standard deviations), and the difference has a p-value of 0.04 even though the confidence intervals overlap.

## Whites as the target group needed to assess racial bias among white liberals

I tweeted about the possibility that whites are the proper target group for assessing racial bias among white liberals, so I thought I'd check available data to assess whether there is evidence for this. The recent Iyengar and Westwood 2015 AJPS article measuring different types of discrimination seemed a good place to look.

In the Iyengar and Westwood 2015 racial discrimination experiment, respondents were given a choice between two high school seniors competing for a scholarship, with names and clubs intended to signal race:

- Arthur Wolfe, President of the Future Investment Banker Club
- Jamal Washington, President of the African American Student Association

For some respondents, the two applicants had the same GPA (3.5 or 4.0), and, for other respondents, one of the applicants had a 3.5 GPA and the other had a 4.0 GPA.

Here are the results for white liberals and white conservatives:

EQUALLY QUALIFIED

Liberals: 73% selected the black target [n=34] CI: [58, 89]

Conservatives: 40% selected the black target [n=55] CI: [27, 53]

Difference between the 73% and the 40%: two-tailed p=0.001BLACK TARGET MORE QUALIFIED

Liberals: 92% selected the black target [n=12] CI: [73, 110]

Conservatives: 56% selected the black target [n=23] CI: [35, 78]

Difference between the 92% and the 56%: two-tailed p=0.013WHITE TARGET MORE QUALIFIED

Liberals: 44% selected the black target [n=18] CI: [19, 70]

Conservatives: 16% selected the black target [n=19] CI: [-2, 34]

Difference between the 44% and the 16%: two-tailed p=0.061

There were substantial differences in the estimates, with white liberals on average favoring the target with the black name when the targets were equally qualified.

Here are the results for white Democrats and white Republicans:

EQUALLY QUALIFIED

Democrats: 62% selected the black target [n=53] CI: [49, 76]

Republicans: 47% selected the black target [n=45] CI: [32, 62]

Difference between the 62% and the 47%: two-tailed p=0.125BLACK TARGET MORE QUALIFIED

Democrats: 75% selected the black target [n=32] CI: [59, 91]

Republicans: 50% selected the black target [n=16] CI: [22, 78]

Difference between the 75% and the 50%: two-tailed p=0.104WHITE TARGET MORE QUALIFIED

Democrats: 59% selected the black target [n=18] CI: [37, 81]

Republicans: 21% selected the black target [n=19] CI: [1, 41]

Difference between the 59% and the 21%: two-tailed p=0.012

Results indicated that white Democrats on average favored the target with the black name in all three scenarios, even when the white target was more qualified. The point estimate for white Republicans never crossed 50% in any scenario.