Statistics of Racism in America 2017 Peer Reviewed

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Inquiry Article

On the prevalence of racial bigotry in the United States

• Randy T. Lee,
• Amanda D. Perez,
• C. Malik Boykin,
• Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton

x

• Published: January 10, 2019
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210698

Figures

Abstruse

Boutwell, Nedelec, Winegard, Shackelford, Beaver, Vaughn, Barnes, & Wright (2017) published an article in this periodical that interprets data from the Add Wellness dataset as showing that only i-quarter of individuals in the United States experience bigotry. In Study one, we attempted to replicate Boutwell et al.'s findings using a more straight measure of discrimination. Using data from the Pew Inquiry Centre, nosotros examined a large sample of American respondents (N = 3,716) and explored the prevalence of bigotry experiences among various racial groups. Our findings stand in contrast to Boutwell et al.'south estimates, revealing that between 50% and 75% of Black, Hispanic, and Asian respondents (depending on the grouping and analytic approach) reported discriminatory treatment. In Study 2, nosotros explored whether question framing affected how participants responded to Boutwell's question about experiencing less respect and courtesy. Regardless of question framing, non-White participants reported more than experiences than White participants. Further, in that location was an interaction of participant race and question framing such that when participants were asked about experiences of less respect or courtesy broadly, there were no differences between non-White participants and White participants, but when they were asked about experiences that were specifically race-based, not-White participants reported more experiences than White participants. The current research provides a counterweight to the claim that discrimination is non a prevalent characteristic of the lives of minority groups and the serious implications this merits poses for inquiry and public policy.

Citation: Lee RT, Perez AD, Boykin CM, Mendoza-Denton R (2019) On the prevalence of racial discrimination in the United States. PLoS I xiv(1): e0210698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210698

Editor: Ali Montazeri, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF Iran

Received: February 26, 2018; Accustomed: December 21, 2018; Published: January ten, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Lee et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The Pew Research Centre data analyzed in Study 1 is publicly available costless of charge. Please click here: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/5-personal-experiences-with-discrimination/. The data for Written report ii can be found hither: https://osf.io/42r6z.

Funding: This research is supported past the National Science Foundation (nsf.gov) nether Accolade Number 1647273. Amanda D. Perez was supported past a National Science Foundation Graduate Inquiry Fellowship and C. Malik Boykin was supported by a Ford Foundation Fellowship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and assay, decision to publish, or grooming of the manuscript. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and practice not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the Ford Foundation.

Competing interests: The authors accept declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

A recent article by Boutwell, Nedelec, Winegard, Shackelford, Beaver, Vaughn, Barnes, & Wright [1] published in PLOS 1 on the prevalence of discrimination across racial groups has received a fair amount of attention [1–four]. Their findings appear to testify that only a small-scale minority of individuals across all racial groups experience bigotry, and comments on social media reflect an acceptance of the authors' conclusions: "What a daze, it's nearly as if America is an egalitarian club that spent over 200 years fighting for equal protection under the law," "most of what comes from the political left, when exposed to reality, scrutiny and fact turns out to exist myth," and "discrimination is not the juggernaut it is constantly cracked up to be." Even scientists and science writers [v–seven] have responded publicly to the findings. The response to Boutwell et al. underscores the influence that researchers tin accept on narratives around sensitive bug, and the responsibility that researchers accept towards the conclusions they draw from data, especially for work that is sensitive and polarizing.

To recap, Boutwell and colleagues examined the National Representative Longitudinal Report of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add together Health) [8] and translate their data every bit revealing that but i-quarter of all participants (25.twenty%), regardless of race, faced discrimination. Betwixt racial groups, they constitute prevalence rates of 23.53% for Whites, 31.88% for Blacks, 27.15% for Hispanics, xi.61% for American Indians, xviii.72% for Asians, and 26.99% for mixed-race individuals. Moreover, they write, "of those reporting having experienced discrimination, the bulk suggested that unique and perhaps situationally specific factors other than race, gender, sexual orientation, and historic period were the cause(due south) of discrimination."

To measure discrimination, Boutwell and colleagues used the following single item question from the Add Wellness Wave 4 in-home interview from Add Health: "In your day to mean solar day life, how often do you feel you have been treated with less respect or courtesy than other people?" (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, and 3 = often). The researchers dichotomized the responses to this item such that responses of never and rarely were collapsed as No, while sometimes and often were collapsed as Yeah. Individuals who responded with sometimes or often in the Add together Health survey were subsequently asked, "What do you lot retrieve was the main reason for these experiences?" and told to option one reason: (1) your ancestry or national origin; (ii) your gender, (iii) your race; (4) your age; (5) your faith; (half dozen) your height or weight; (7) your shade of skin color; (eight) your sexual orientation; (nine) your pedagogy or income; (10) a physical disability; or (11) other. Boutwell et al. collapsed ancestry or national origin, race, and shade of pare color to one category "Race/Ancestry/Skin color." Responses to these items were matched to a Wave I in-school interview question that captured racial and indigenous demographics of the respondent, which was administered when participants were 12 to xviii years old. Over 99% of participants reported speaking English during Moving ridge I, though ii% of the interviews were conducted in Spanish. In the subsequent Waves, less than 0.2% of interviews were conducted in Spanish. Past Wave 4, the respondents were adults anile 24 to 32 years old. For more than information virtually the Add Health dataset, run across https://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design.

Respect, discrimination, and framing effects

As noted, Boutwell and colleagues used "In your 24-hour interval to twenty-four hours life, how often practice you experience you take been treated with less respect or courtesy than other people?" every bit their index of discrimination. This question, although having a different response scale, is a composite of two questions from the nine-item Everyday Bigotry Scale (EDS), which was constructed to mensurate "chronic, routine, and relatively pocket-sized experiences of unfair treatment" [ix, x]. Other items in the scale deal with receiving poorer service than others in restaurants and people acting equally if you are not smart. We believe that researchers who want to measure out everyday experiences of unfair treatment due to race or another condition-based characteristic should use the full scale or (at the very least) multiple items from it and specify the status-based characteristic being examined. Critically, researchers have found that questions that enquire well-nigh unfair treatment and racial/ethnic discrimination are 2 "qualitatively dissimilar phenomena" (e.thou., [eleven,12]).

We argue that the variable used by Boutwell and colleagues to examine discrimination should be more appropriately referred to equally respect, rather than discrimination. This distinction is critical. I can exist denied a loan, turned downwards from a job, or provided unequal opportunity on the footing of i's background or identity—yet washed in a respectful and courteous fashion. Consistent with this thought, Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio, & Pratto [thirteen] experimentally plant that even after positive, polite, and amicable interactions, individuals were still discriminated against by the advantaged out-group in a resources resource allotment task.

The distinction between respect and discriminatory handling may be 1 clue to helping reconcile Boutwell et al.'s findings with a wealth of prior literature on the prevalence of discrimination. Using the MacArthur Foundation Midlife Development in the Usa (MIDUS) survey, Kessler, Mickelson, and Williams [14] institute that threescore.9% of all respondents experienced some form (rarely, sometimes, oftentimes) of at to the lowest degree one of the 9 EDS items and 33.5% of all individuals experienced an instance of major discrimination in their lifetime in a national sample of Americans aged 25–74. The EDS included items related to being treated equally if not smart, inferior, or quack, whereas major discrimination included items like being denied a bank loan, hassled by the constabulary, or forced to leave a neighborhood due to discrimination. Nosotros note that the MIDUS used scales consisting of multiple items for both major and daily experiences, rather than single-particular questions. Collapsing oft and sometimes for the EDS items (like Boutwell and colleagues did with the single Add Wellness mensurate) in the MIDUS dataset results in a 23.7% day to day discrimination prevalence for Whites and 71.3% for Blacks (see Table iii in Kessler, Mickelson, & Williams [14]). For major lifetime discrimination, 30.nine% of Whites compared to 48.9% of Blacks reported experiencing major discrimination (see Tabular array 1 in Kessler, Mickelson, & Williams [14]). Highlighting the dramatic differences between the groups, 44.4% of Whites reported never experiencing day to mean solar day bigotry compared to eight.viii% of Blacks. Similarly, the 2002–2003 Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Studies (CPES) included all 9 items from the EDS in their study of Black, Asian, and Hispanic individuals. Similar the Add Health survey, respondents were able to choose the reason for their mistreatment (e.chiliad., ancestry, gender, historic period, summit or weight) after responding to each of the ix questions. Using this dataset, Chou, Asnaani, and Hofmann [fifteen] found that 58% of Blacks, 39% of Asians, and 35% of Hispanics reported racial reasons for their mistreatment.

In a 2017 nationally representative study on prevalence of institutional discrimination in America, NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health plant that 60% of Blacks (49% in urban areas and 67% in suburban areas) reported that they or a family fellow member had been unfairly treated or stopped by a police officeholder due to race, compared to 27% of Hispanics, 13% of Asians, and 6% of Whites. The 2017 study likewise found that 57% of Blacks reported discrepancies in earning equal pay or promotions, compared to 32% of Hispanics, 31% of Native Americans, 25% of Asian Americans, and 13% of Whites [xvi]. We note institutional (also known as structural) discrimination is not at all captured by the respect variable used by Boutwell and colleagues. Institutional discrimination refers to the disparities that systematically favor certain groups, and scholars have noted that in order to understand racial disparities beyond multiple domains (e.m., housing, schooling, employment, wellness, justice), these disparities accept to exist seen as "reciprocally related and comprise an integrated system" [17].

These findings highlight how at that place tin be a disconnect between the concepts of perceiving that oneself was treated with less respect, perceiving that one has experienced discrimination, and existence a target of discrimination. Taken together, the findings suggest that the overall prevalence charge per unit of racial bigotry is likely over 25% in the United States, and that the prevalence rate should vary significantly by racial groups.

Does question framing thing?

Central to the result of discrepant prevalence rates between Boutwell et al. and previous findings is framing. According to Entman [xviii], framing is done to "promote a particular problem definition, causal estimation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation." Frames piece of work by cartoon attention to a particular aspect of information, which makes the slice of information more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable [18]. The same issue framed in dissimilar ways has been plant to reliably produce shifts in responses [19]. Indeed, Brown [20] found differences in the prevalence charge per unit of self-perceived racial and ethnic discrimination for Blacks based on framing. Depending on whether he used ane explicitly framed question about experiencing unfair treatment due to race and ethnicity or six unfair handling two-stage questions (e.g., Stage 1: Have y'all been treated unfairly? Stage two: What was the reason?), he constitute a 67% prevalence rate (explicit) compared to a 50% prevalence charge per unit (two-phase). In sum, unfair treatment due to race-based bigotry was 1.34 times more likely to be reported if the question framing was explicit and was direct. Boutwell et al's particular, in the absence of explicit framing most discrimination or a condition-based characteristic (e.chiliad., race, gender, age), may take led to under-reporting of participants' experiences.

The electric current research

In Written report 1, nosotros present analyses that parallel and attempt to replicate the findings of Boutwell et al. using a nationally representative dataset from the Pew Research Heart, which has a question that explicitly and more directly measures experiences of racial discrimination. In Study 2, nosotros experimentally manipulate framing to run into whether it can shift responses to a question on being treated with less respect and courtesy. We hypothesize that a broad framing of experiencing less respect leads to a minimization of racial differences, simply every bit the framing becomes more specific and draws attention to race and ethnicity, differences will exist revealed.

Study 1 was determined to by the UC Berkeley's Committee for the Protection of Homo Subjects (CPHS) Institutional Review Board (IRB) to exist secondary data analyses, thus not needing IRB approval. Study 2 was reviewed and canonical by UC Berkeley's CPHS IRB under protocol 2018-04-10951. In Study 2, participants provided digital consent by typing their MTurk ID.

Study i

Method

Information.

Pew Research Center Data. We utilized the Pew Research Middle'southward 2016 Racial Attitudes in America Survey dataset [21], which has a question that directly asks virtually personal experiences with discrimination. The data were collected using phone interviews conducted between February 29 to May 8, 2016, among a nationally representative sample of adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish, with most (74.one%) interviewed on prison cell phones. The Hispanic sample in the dataset were predominantly native born and English speaking.

Our sample for analyses had a total of 3,631 participants (M_age = 49.62). The gender composition consisted of 1,903 male (52.41%) and 1,728 female (47.59%), and the racial composition consisted of 2,094 White (57.67%), one,077 Black (29.66%), 129 Asian (iii.55%), and 331 Hispanic (nine.12%). Respondents were only able to select ane racial identity. See Table ane for total breakdown of race by response.

Weights. We used probability weights to adjust for the sampling method of the survey. Weighting is typically used in survey data analysis to adjust for effects of the sample design and to recoup for potentially biased sampling. The Pew Inquiry Center'south 2016 Racial Attitudes in America Survey dataset [21] states that their weighting variable was created to business relationship for "the disproportionately-stratified samples, the overlapping landline and cell sample frames and household composition, the oversampling of African-Americans through callback interviews, and differential non-response associated with sample demographics." For more than information about the Pew Enquiry Center weighting and methodology, see http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-southward-survey-research/our-survey-methodology-in-detail/.

We used the svydesign and svyglm functions from the survey package in R to behave our analyses with the appropriate weights, using the weight variable in the dataset that the Pew Enquiry Center created and provided.

Racial Bigotry Measure. Nosotros used the detail, "Have yous ever personally experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly because of your race or ethnicity, or non?" [If respondents answered Yes: "And would you say this is something you experience regularly, or is this something yous feel from time to time, simply not regularly?"] (1 = Yes, regularly, 2 = Yes, from time to time, 3 = Yeah, just only one time/rarely, 4 = No, and 9 = Don't know/Refused). For the analyses, individuals who responded with Don't Know/Refused were removed and the responses were reverse coded, such that higher numbers reflected more racial discrimination experiences.

Analytic Plan.

We ran three different models with the dependent variable of racial bigotry in order to parallel the analytic programme of Boutwell and colleagues, who ran models using chiselled versions and dichotomous versions of their measure. The first model treats the racial discrimination variable as a Likert, continuous variable, while the second and third models treats the racial discrimination variable as a No and Yeah dichotomous variable. Nosotros dichotomized the variable two ways: the start of these (Model 2) was conducted such that 0 reflects No feel and the balance (ane, 2, 3) reflected at to the lowest degree one instance of racial discrimination. The 2d dichotomization (Model 3) was conducted with 0 and 1 reflecting No experience (complanate and coded as zero) and the rest (2, 3) reflecting experiencing discrimination more consistently than not (collapsed and coded as 1). The model that almost closely corresponds to Boutwell et al. is Model 3.

Results

Prevalence of bigotry

43.fifty% of all individuals in the Pew Research Center dataset reported experiencing discrimination from time to time or regularly. This is a substantial difference compared to the 25.twenty% reported by Boutwell and colleagues. When comparing the experiences of bigotry of minorities (Black, Hispanic, and Asian) and Whites, we also discover a large dissimilarity in our results. In our about conservative estimates, we find 63.ten% of minorities experience racial discrimination compared to 29.61% of Whites. By contrast, Boutwell et al. report estimates of 28.74% of less respect or courtesy for minorities and 23.53% for Whites. Group level prevalence rates paint an even larger difference from Boutwell et al.'due south estimates. In our conservative guess, 69.45% of Blacks experience discrimination from time to time or regularly in comparison to the 31.88% reported by Boutwell and colleagues. Other differences are the prevalence rates institute for Asians (56.59% in our report compared to xviii.72% in the Boutwell et al.) and for Hispanics (45.01% in our study compared to 27.15% in Boutwell et al.).

Tabular array one includes the full breakdown of frequencies in our sample, while Tables 2 and 3 has dichotomized responses. Tables 2 and 3 differ at the point where the discrimination variable is dichotomized and respectively complement Model 2 and Model 3 in our analyses. For ease of comparison, these tables are formatted similarly to Table ane in Boutwell et al. [1].

Tabular array ii. Pew Research Heart data dichotomized.

No reflects individuals who reported no experiences of discrimination, and Yes reflects reports of One Fourth dimension/Rarely, Fourth dimension to time, and Regular experiences of bigotry.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210698.t002

Table three. Pew Research Center data dichotomized.

No reflects individuals who reported no experiences or one time/rare experiences of discrimination, and Yes reflects responses of experiencing bigotry from time to time and regularly.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210698.t003

Differences in discrimination experiences between groups.

Due to sample size and power concerns, we merely examined White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian respondents for betwixt grouping comparing analyses. All racial minority groups (Blackness, Hispanic, and Asian) reported facing more racial discrimination in comparison to Whites, with Blacks reporting the virtually amid the groups analyzed. Among minorities, Hispanics reported facing less discrimination than Blacks. Depending on how we dichotomized the variables, we constitute slight differences in experiences: Asians reported facing more discrimination than Hispanics in both Model 1 and Model 3, but at that place were no differences in Model two, and Asians reported facing less discrimination than Blacks in Model ii, but there were no differences constitute in Model i and Model 3.

In the next subsections, we dive into each model that we highlighted previously.

Model 1: Discrimination using the total Likert range.

Nosotros plant that all racial minority groups (Black, Hispanic, and Asian) reported facing more racial discrimination than Whites, R ^two = 0.13, F(3, 3599) = 184.7, p < .001. Follow-upward analyses were conducted to see whether there were differences among the minority groups in experiences of racial discrimination. Hispanics reported experiencing less discrimination than Blacks (d = 0.53, b = -0.51, SE = 0.08, t = -6.29, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.67, -0.35]) and Asians reported facing more than discrimination than Hispanics (d = 0.22, b = 0.31, SE = 0.15, t = 2.12, p = .03, 95% CI [0.02, 0.59]). No differences were found betwixt Blacks and Asians in experiences of racial discrimination (d = 0.26, b = -0.20, SE = 0.xiii, t = -i.49, p = .14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.06]). Encounter Table 4 for a summary of racial minority grouping differences in comparison to Whites.

Model 2: Discrimination as dichotomous split, with No vs. Yeah, rarely, Aye, fourth dimension to time, and Aye, regularly.

Identical to Model ane, nosotros constitute that all racial minority groups (Blackness, Hispanic, and Asian) reported facing more than racial discrimination than Whites, with Blacks by far experiencing the largest difference in experiences, R ² = 0.13, F(3, 3599) = 173.two, p < .001. We ran follow-upward analyses to run across whether at that place were differences among the minority groups in experiences of racial discrimination every bit a dichotomized response. We found that Hispanics faced less discrimination than Blacks (d = 0.55, b = -0.93, SE = 0.sixteen, t = -5.69, p < .001, 95% CI [-i.25, -0.61]) and a marginal difference betwixt Asians and Blacks, with Asians reporting less experiences of bigotry than Blacks (d = 0.30, b = -0.49, SE = 0.26, t = -one.92, p = .0549, 95% CI [-one.00, 0.01]). There were no differences between Hispanics and Asians in experiences of racial discrimination (d = 0.20, b = 0.44, SE = 0.28, t = 1.59, p = .11, 95% CI [-0.x, 0.98]). See Tabular array 5 for a summary of racial minority group experiences of discrimination in comparing to Whites.

Table 5. Racial bigotry as dichotomous responses, with No reflecting individuals who reported no experiences, and Aye reflecting 1 Time/Rarely, Time to time, and Regular experiences of discrimination.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210698.t005

Model 3: Bigotry every bit dichotomous split up, with No and Yes, rarely vs. Yes, time to fourth dimension and Yes, regularly.

Identical to both previous models, we found that all racial minority groups (Blackness, Hispanic, and Asian) reported facing more racial discrimination than Whites when analyzing the variable as a dichotomized response, R ² = 0.13, F(3, 3599) = 183.5, p < .001. Over again, Blacks experienced the most amount of discrimination in comparison to Whites. We ran follow-upwardly analyses to encounter whether there were differences among the minority groups in experiences of racial discrimination every bit a dichotomized response. We establish that Hispanics reported facing less bigotry than Blacks (d = 0.54, b = -0.98, SE = 0.sixteen, t = -6.07, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.xxx, -0.67]) and Asians reported facing more bigotry than Hispanics (d = 0.23, b = 0.63, SE = 0.27, t = 2.33, p = .02, 95% CI [0.10, 1.17]). There were no differences betwixt Blacks and Asians (d = 0.28, b = -0.35, SE = 0.25, t = -1.37, p = .17, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.15]). Meet Table six for a summary of racial minority group experiences in comparison to Whites.

Table six. Racial bigotry equally dichotomous responses, with No reflecting individuals who reported No experiences and One Fourth dimension/Rarely, and Yes reflecting individuals who reported Time to time, and Regular experiences of discrimination.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210698.t006

Discussion

Similar Boutwell et al., nosotros were non able to analyze all racial groups in our sample. We notation that there is much discussion whether it is appropriate or valid to dichotomize items that were originally continuous variables (due east.k., [22,23]). For the purposes of our analyses, we nonetheless felt that it was advisable to behave parallel analyses to Boutwell and colleagues. In our nearly conservative analyses (Model 3), we discover that between 45% and lxx% of Blackness, Hispanic, and Asian respondents report experiencing racial discriminatory treatment compared to xxx% of Whites. Collapsing across racial groups, we find that around 63% of minorities (Black, Hispanic, and Asian) experience bigotry compared to thirty% of Whites. In contrast, Boutwell and colleagues found a prevalence charge per unit of 29% for minorities and 24% for Whites. Overall, we notice that nigh 43% of all individuals experience discrimination, a substantial difference compared to the 25% reported by Boutwell and colleagues. All the same, a remaining question is why at that place are such discrepant prevalence rates between our findings and those of Boutwell and colleagues. One possibility is sampling error; however, given the relatively robust sample sizes, we believe sampling mistake lone is unlikely to business relationship for the drastic differences. Additionally, the detail nosotros used to measure discrimination directly asked participants whether they had experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly due to race or ethnicity. As noted earlier, framing questions as existence explicitly about discrimination can alter how participants respond and this may account for the discrepancy between our findings and Boutwell et al.'southward. We address this possibility directly in Study 2 by experimentally manipulating the framing of the exact question used by Boutwell and colleagues.

Study ii

Method

Participants and design.

394 participants (M_{historic period} = 35.38) from Amazon Mechanical Turk participated in a written report on experiences. Participants were required to be native English speakers living in the Us. The gender composition consisted of 221 Male (56.1%), 170 Female person (43.1%), 2 Non-Binary, and 1 unknown, and the racial composition consisted of 302 White (76.vi%), 31 Black (7.9%), xxx Asian (7.vi%), xvi Hispanic (four.ane%), 11 two or more (two.8%), two other, 1 American Indian/Alaskan, and 1 Native Hawaiian and/or Other Pacific Islander. In the subsequent analyses, we collapsed across race and compared White (n = 302) and not-White (n = 92) participants due to small sample sizes within the racial minorities collected.

All participants were randomly assigned to ane of three conditions and completed a single item about experiencing less respect or courtesy based on either (1) Less Respect: "In your mean solar day to 24-hour interval life, how often practise yous feel you accept been treated with less respect or courtesy than other people?"; (2) Any Blazon of Discrimination: "In your day to twenty-four hours life, how often practise you feel you have been treated with less respect or courtesy than other people considering of your race, ethnicity, gender, disabilities, sexual orientation, or historic period?"; or (3) Race-Based Discrimination: "In your twenty-four hour period to day life, how oft exercise y'all experience y'all have been treated with less respect or courtesy than other people because of your race or ethnicity?" We note that the "Less Respect" framing condition is identical to the question used by Boutwell and colleagues. Like the Add Health response calibration and the data analyzed past Boutwell and colleagues, participants rated their responses on a 0–3 scale, with 0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, and 3 = oftentimes.

Results

For ease of readability, nosotros refer to the result variable equally but "experiences" and we will distinguish between each status in the relevant analyses. To distinguish each condition, we will use "Less Respect", "Any Blazon of Discrimination", and "Race-Based Discrimination". See Table 7 for a breakup of responses by each question framing status.

To examine differences, nosotros ran a linear regression predicting experiences from the interaction of participant race and question framing. Since we were interested in both primary effects and the interaction effect, we opted for effect coding of participant race and uncomplicated coding for question framing–this allowed for the intercept to stand for to the mean of all cell ways. We ran our initial model with the "Less Respect" framing condition being the reference level for the question framing variable to become a main upshot comparison "Less Respect" framing to "Race-Based Discrimination" framing, as well as a primary effect comparing "Less Respect" framing to "Any Type of Discrimination" framing. We so ran a follow-upward model with "Race-Based Discrimination" as the reference level to get a principal event comparing "Race-Based Discrimination" framing to "Any Type of Discrimination" framing.

As predicted, nosotros found a main effect of participant race such that regardless of question framing, non-Whites (Yard = 2.37, SD = 0.77) reported more experiences than Whites (K = one.98, SD = 0.82), d = 0.51, SE = 0.09, t(388) = 4.24, p < .001, 95% CI [0.twenty, 0.57]. These findings were qualified past some important interactions between participant race and question framing: Offset, not-Whites reported significantly more than experiences than Whites in the "Race-Based Discrimination" framing condition, d = 1.xi, SE = 0.16, t(388) = 5.32, p < .001, 95% CI [0.53, 1.xv]. Second, non-Whites reported marginally more experiences than Whites in the "Whatever Blazon of Bigotry" framing condition, d = 0.44, SE = 0.sixteen, t(388), p = .0350, 95% CI [0.02, 0.66]. Third, we found no differences between non-Whites and Whites in the "Less Respect" framing condition, d = 0.02, SE = 0.16, t(388) = -0.099, p = .92, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.29]. Results of a multiple linear regression examination indicated that, collectively, in that location was a significant interaction result of participant race and question framing, R ^two = 0.14, F(v, 388) = 12.67, p < .001. To control for the familywise fault rate in the tests for these interactions, we used the Bonferroni correction procedure (α′ = α/n), thus the significance level for each individual examination was set at (.05/3) = .0167. See Fig i for a visual representation of the findings.

Fig 1. Experiences based on "Less Respect", "Whatsoever Type of Discrimination", and "Race-Based Discrimination".

Note: non-White includes Black, Asian, Hispanic, and other non-White participants collapsed into one group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210698.g001

Exploratory analyses.

Nosotros were interested in looking at possible differences between groups and conducted some exploratory analyses. All following analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using Tukey'south method for comparing a family of half dozen estimates. There was an effect of question framing such that individuals in the "Race-Based Discrimination" framing status (Thousand = 1.78, SD = 0.81) reported fewer experiences than individuals in the "Less Respect" framing condition (Thou = 2.27, SD = 0.74), d = 0.35, SE = 0.11, t(388) = -2.39, p = .0450, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.00], as well as a marginal event of question framing such that individuals in the "Whatever Type of Discrimination" framing status (Grand = 2.17, SD = 0.84) reported more experiences than individuals in the "Race-Based Discrimination" framing status (M = 1.78, SD = 0.81), d = 0.34, SE = 0.xi, t(388) = 2.35, p = .0510, 95% CI [-0.00, 0.53]. We did not find an effect between individuals in the "Less Respect" and "Whatsoever Blazon of Discrimination" framing conditions, d = 0.00.

Additionally, nosotros looked to see if there were any differences betwixt non-Whites and Whites across framing conditions: Whites in the "Race-Based Discrimination" framing condition reported fewer experiences than not-Whites in the "Whatever Type of Discrimination" framing condition, d = -1.11, SE = 0.16, t(388) = -5.342, p < 0.001, 95% CI [-1.31, -0.xl]. Whites in the "Race-Based Discrimination" framing condition reported fewer experiences than non-Whites in the "Less Respect" condition, d = -0.88, SE = 0.xvi, t(388) = -4.299, p < 0.001, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.sixteen]. Whites in the "Any Type of Bigotry" framing condition reported more than experiences than Whites in the "Race-Based Discrimination" framing condition, d = 0.67, SE = 0.11, t(388) = 0.486, p < .001, 95% CI [0.20, 0.83]. Whites in the "Race-based Discrimination" framing condition reported fewer experiences than Whites in the "Less Respect" framing condition, d = 0.90, SE = 0.eleven, t(388) = 6.484, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.39, i.00].

Discussion

In Report 2, nosotros found show to back up our hypotheses that participant race and question framing impacts the reporting of experiences. Overall, regardless of whether the question was framed as "Less Respect," "Any Type of Discrimination," or "Race-Based Discrimination," non-White participants reported more experiences than White participants. This effect interacted with question framing. There were no racial differences plant in the "Less Respect" framing condition, but racial differences were found in the "Race-Based Discrimination" framing status, such that non-White participants reported more experiences than White participants. In Sum, a broad framing of "Less Respect" led to a minimization of reported racial differences, whereas more than specific framings (e.g., "Race-Based Bigotry") led to a more than pronounced difference between non-White participants and White participants. This written report was limited such that not-native English language speakers were excluded due to our inclusion criteria, which probable led to conservative estimates of prevalence of experiences and framing effects. We note that past research has found that non-English and non-native English speakers are exposed to higher rates of discriminatory treatment (e.thousand., [24,25]). Additionally, we were not able to examine racial differences within non-White groups.

General discussion

Our studies provide bear witness that the "possibly exaggerated claims that discrimination is a prevalent feature of contemporary life in the United States" [i] may exist less exaggerated than Boutwell et al. report. In sum, our findings nowadays a strikingly different movie on the prevalence of discrimination in the U.s. and provide insight as to why the prevalence rates of Boutwell and colleagues were so different than that of previous research, every bit well as Study ane.

In Study 1, we found a much college prevalence rate of bigotry than Boutwell et al. written report across all racial groups, regardless of how we analyzed the data. For example, Boutwell et al. found that 31.88% of Blacks experienced discrimination, whereas we found a range of 69.45% and 73.62% depending on how nosotros dichotomized experiences. Replicating previous enquiry (e.g., [26–28]), we found that not-Whites in the United States experience more discrimination than their White counterparts.

In Study 2, we examined whether manipulating the framing of the question used by Boutwell et al. on experiences of less respect and courtesy would lead to dissimilar responses past framing condition and participant race. Regardless of framing condition, not-White participants reported more experiences than White participants. In the broad "Less Respect" framing status, at that place were no differences between non-White and White experiences. However, in the framing condition where participants were asked virtually experiences caused by "Race-Based Bigotry," non-Whites reported more than experiences than Whites. These findings highlight the importance of considering question framing when request participations most their discrimination experiences.

Nosotros note that Boutwell and colleagues [1] believed that "much circumspection is necessary when interpreting" their findings and that "the conclusion that [their] results suggest that the problem of bigotry in the Usa is, to whatsoever great extent, remedied and in need of further scrutiny or improvement" should be avoided. We agree with them, and it is unfortunate that many readers of their work did not heed their call. Further, although other researchers (see Everett, Onge, & Mollborn [29]) accept used the Add together Health Wave IV item as an index of discrimination (in their case to examine minority condition and the detail's relationship with mental health outcomes), our findings suggest that attention to the wording in that piece of work may yield different theoretical conclusions.

The current results are consistent with previous research on the prevalence of discrimination experiences in the United States. Still, there is evidence that bigotry prevalence rates may be fifty-fifty higher than what is shown in our results. Age, socioeconomic status, and legal status have been found to influence how likely one is to experience and/or report discriminatory treatment based on race or ethnicity [30,16]. Inquiry past Crosby [31] suggests that people are prone to minimize personal experiences of discrimination because of the difficulty of inferring discrimination from individual cases and considering of the discomfort in confronting ane's ain victimization. Similarly, individuals perceive a higher level of discrimination directed at the group they belong to every bit a whole than themselves as individuals [32]. Indeed, studies take shown that individuals do not label their own experiences as bigotry, fifty-fifty if their experiences fit the definition used by researchers and policymakers [33]. Conversely, individuals may perceive and report experiencing discrimination, even if researchers and policymakers do not categorize their experiences as discrimination.

A rich body of literature suggests that discrimination exists and has existent outcomes. Robust discrepancies between Whites and not-Whites are found in hiring [34–36], healthcare admission [37], wellness outcomes [38–41], housing [42], lending [43], education, [44], and prosecution and sentencing [45,46]. We believe that these are the indices that best capture how discrimination should be thought of because they are the tangible manifestations of beliefs, attitudes, and feelings. These discrepancies should be considered and taken into account when examining or interpreting private experiences of discrimination.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the Pew Research Eye for making the information used in this manuscript publicly available–complimentary of charge. The Pew Research Eye bears no responsibility for any interpretations presented or conclusions reached based on analysis presented in this manuscript. Amanda D. Perez is supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. Nosotros thank Brian Boutwell for his review during the peer review process. Nosotros appreciate Stephen Antonoplis, Andres Montealegre, Stephanie Tepper, Due south. Bryan West, Rachel Male monarch, and Deniz Akdemir for their aid and helpful comments during the preparation of our manuscript.

References

1. 1. Boutwell B, Nedelec J, Winegard B, Shackelford T, Beaver Yard, Vaughn M et al. The prevalence of discrimination across racial groups in contemporary America: Results from a nationally representative sample of adults. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0183356. pmid:28837680
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. Bandler A. Study: Most Minorities Have Experienced Lilliputian To No Discrimination In America [Internet]. Daily Wire. 2017 [cited x October 2017]. Available from: https://www.dailywire.com/news/20645/study-most-minorities-havent-experienced-aaron-bandler#
3. 3. Airaksinen T. Prof finds majority of minorities don't confront bigotry [Internet]. Campus Reform. 2017 [cited 13 October 2017]. Bachelor from: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9699
4. 4. Gallatin T. Majority of Minorities Suffer No Discrimination [Internet]. The Patriot Mail. 2017 [cited 15 Oct 2017]. Available from: https://patriotpost.us/manufactures/51111
5. 5. Lee, Jussim. Maybe less than ofttimes argued. http://ow.ly/DQbU30fyuVS [Twitter]. 2017 i Oct [Cited 10 October 2017]. Available from: https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/914543518529523715
6. 6. Christakis, N.A. Minority of xxx y.o. Americans of all races report having experienced discrimination in nat'l sample http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183356 … | @fsnole1 et al [Twitter]. Baronial 25 2017 [Cited ten October 2017]. Available from: https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/901023828834476032
7. 7. Shermer, G. New PLOS study (N = 14,793) by @fsnole1 finds discrimination is Not a prevalent feature of modern American life https://t.co/cIgmLqO548?amp=1 August 25 2017 [Cited Nov 20, 2018] Bachelor from: https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/901198770762792960
8. eight. Harris KM, Halpern CT, Smolen A, Haberstick BC. The national longitudinal study of adolescent wellness (Add together Health) twin data. Twin Research and Homo Genetics. 2006 Dec;9(6):988–97. pmid:17254442
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Williams D, Yan Yu, Jackson J, Anderson N. Racial Differences in Physical and Mental Health. Periodical of Wellness Psychology. 1997;2(3):335–351. pmid:22013026
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Thrasher A, Dirt O, Ford C, Stewart A. Theory-Guided Selection of Discrimination Measures for Racial/ Ethnic Health Disparities Research Among Older Adults. Journal of Aging and Wellness. 2012;24(6):1018–1043. pmid:22451527
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Chae D, Takeuchi D, Barbeau E, Bennett One thousand, Lindsey J, Krieger N. Unfair Treatment, Racial/Ethnic Discrimination, Ethnic Identification, and Smoking Among Asian Americans in the National Latino and Asian American Study. American Periodical of Public Wellness. 2008;98(3):485–492. pmid:18235073
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Lewis T, Cogburn C, Williams D. Cocky-Reported Experiences of Discrimination and Health: Scientific Advances, Ongoing Controversies, and Emerging Bug. Almanac Review of Clinical Psychology. 2015;eleven(ane):407–440.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Saguy T, Tausch N, Dovidio J, Pratto F. The Irony of Harmony. Psychological Scientific discipline. 2009;20(1):114–121. pmid:19152543
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
14. fourteen. Kessler R, Mickelson K, Williams D. The Prevalence, Distribution, and Mental Health Correlates of Perceived Discrimination in the Usa. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1999;xl(3):208. pmid:10513145
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Chou T, Asnaani A, Hofmann S. Perception of racial bigotry and psychopathology across three U.S. ethnic minority groups. Cultural Diverseness and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 2012;18(1):74–81. pmid:21967527
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. National Public Radio, Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Discrimination in America: Experiences and Views on Affects of Bigotry Across Major Population Groups in the U.s.a.. National Public Radio [Cyberspace]. 2017 [cited 24 October 2017];. Available from: https://world wide web.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2017/10/discrimination-in-america—experiences-and-views.html
17. 17. Reskin B. The Race Discrimination System. Almanac Review of Folklore. 2012;38(1):17–35.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
18. xviii. Entman R. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Epitome. Journal of Communication. 1993;43(4):51–58.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481):453–458. pmid:7455683
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Brown T. Measuring Self-Perceived Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in Surveys. Sociological Spectrum. 2001;21(3):377–392.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Personal experiences with bigotry [Cyberspace]. Pew Research Heart's Social & Demographic Trends Projection. 2016. Available from: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/five-personal-experiences-with-discrimination/
22. 22. Cohen J. The Cost of Dichotomization. Practical Psychological Measurement. 1983;vii(3):249–253.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. MacCallum R, Zhang S, Preacher G, Rucker D. On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods. 2002;7(1):19–xl. pmid:11928888
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Yoo H, Gee G, Takeuchi D. Discrimination and health amongst Asian American immigrants: Disentangling racial from language bigotry. Social Science & Medicine. 2009;68(four):726–732.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Lippi-Green R. English language with an accent. London: Routledge; 2012.
26. 26. Casey L. Discrimination in America: Experiences and views of African Americans[Net]. 2018 [cited ane Feb 2018]. Available from: https://www.npr.org/assets/img/2017/10/23/discriminationpoll-african-americans.pdf
27. 27. Kessler R, Mickelson K, Williams D. The Prevalence, Distribution, and Mental Health Correlates of Perceived Discrimination in the United States. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1999;40(three):208. pmid:10513145
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Krieger Due north, Smith K, Naishadham D, Hartman C, Barbeau E. Experiences of discrimination: Validity and reliability of a self-study measure out for population wellness research on racism and health. Social Scientific discipline & Medicine. 2005;61(seven):1576–1596.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Everett B, Onge J, Mollborn South. Effects of Minority Condition and Perceived Bigotry on Mental Health. Population Research and Policy Review. 2016;35(iv):445–469.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Landale North, Oropesa R, Noah A. Experiencing bigotry in Los Angeles: Latinos at the intersection of legal status and socioeconomic condition. Social Scientific discipline Enquiry. 2017;67:34–48. pmid:28888290
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Crosby F. The Denial of Personal Discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist. 1984;27(3):371–386.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Taylor D, Wright S, Moghaddam F, Lalonde R. The Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy. Personality and Social Psychology Message. 1990;16(2):254–262.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Kaiser C, Major B. A Social Psychological Perspective on Perceiving and Reporting Bigotry. Law & Social Inquiry. 2006;31(iv):801–830.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Quillian Fifty, Pager D, Hexel O, Midtbøen A. Meta-assay of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;:201706255.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Darity W, Mason P. Prove on Bigotry in Employment: Codes of Color, Codes of Gender. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1998;12(2):63–xc.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Bertrand Chiliad, Mullainathan S. Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Bigotry. American Economic Review. 2004;94(4):991–1013.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Boulware L, Cooper L, Ratner L, LaVeist T, Powe N. Race and trust in the health intendance system. Public Health Reports. 2003;118(4):358–365. pmid:12815085
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Williams D, Mohammed South. Discrimination and racial disparities in wellness: evidence and needed research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2008;32(1):twenty–47. pmid:19030981
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Leitner J, Hehman E, Ayduk O, Mendoza-Denton R. Blacks' Death Rate Due to Circulatory Diseases Is Positively Related to Whites' Explicit Racial Bias. Psychological Science. 2016;27(10):1299–1311. pmid:27557618
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
40. twoscore. Dolezsar C, McGrath J, Herzig A, Miller S. Perceived racial discrimination and hypertension: A comprehensive systematic review. Health Psychology. 2014;33(i):xx–34. pmid:24417692
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Allen A, Thomas Chiliad, Michaels Due east, Reeves A, Okoye U, Price Thousand et al. Racial discrimination, educational attainment, and biological dysregulation amongst midlife African American women. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2018;99:225–235. pmid:30286445
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Einstein K, Glick D. Does Race Affect Access to Regime Services? An Experiment Exploring Street-Level Bureaucrats and Access to Public Housing. American Journal of Political Science. 2016;61(1):100–116.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Bartlett R, Morse A, Stanton R, Wallace N. Consumer Lending Discrimination in the FinTech Era. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2017.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Krueger A, Rothstein J, Turner Due south. Race, Income, and College in 25 Years: Evaluating Justice O'Connor'due south Theorize. American Law and Economics Review. 2006;eight(2):282–311.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. Eberhardt J, Davies P, Purdie-Vaughns V, Johnson S. Looking Deathworthy. Psychological Science. 2006;17(5):383–386. pmid:16683924
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Kutateladze B, Andiloro N, Johnson B, Spohn C. Cumulative disadvantage: Examining racial and indigenous disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology. 2014;52(3):514–551.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

joneswhattho.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0210698

Share this post