![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Research shows that multiracial individuals’ racial identities are often questioned because their appearances are not prototypical of their racial groups. We examined whether social activism performed by a multiracial person may bolster perceptions of that person as a legitimate representative of the racial minority group. In Studies 1 and 2, participants in a voting paradigm voted for a multiracial over a monoracial candidate if the candidate displayed social activism. In addition, Study 3 found that candidates who displayed social activism, rather than a generic racially prototypical behavior, were seen as more electable and representative of the association. Overall, our findings illuminate the power of social activism to alter perceptions of how representative multiracial individuals are of their racial minority groups..
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
Notes
1. Based on the recommendation of an anonymous reviewer, this was later confirmed through a paired samples t-test, which showed there was a significant difference between the high activism statement that was paired with the low activism statement in terms of activism, t(17) = 3.85, p = .001. Additionally there was no significant difference between the high activism statements in terms of activism, t(17) = −1.29 p = .22.
2. We expected that faces categorized as multiracial would not necessarily receive high prototypicality ratings, as there is likely to be more phenotypic variability within the multiracial category than there is within monoracial categories.
3. Based on the recommendation of an anonymous reviewer, this was later tested through a paired samples t-test, which showed that there was a significant difference between the ratings of attractiveness between the candidates, t(14) = 2.25, p = .04.
4. A goal of this study was to investigate whether participants respond similarly to candidates with whom they are likely to have had high (e.g., Asian) versus low (e.g., Black) exposure by manipulating candidate race. However, we acknowledge that examining individual differences in exposure to diversity is an alternative way to examine this question and conducted exploratory analyses to examine this possibility. The results did not reveal significant effects of exposure on participants’ responses; therefore, and given that we did not pre-register hypotheses regarding this variable, we report the results of this exploratory analyses in the Supplement.
5. Based on the recommendation of an anonymous reviewer, a four-paired samples t-test was later conducted to confirm that high activism statements pared with high activism statements did not significantly differ in terms of social activism (|ts|(7) < 2.05, ps > .07), while high activism statements paired with low activism statements significantly differed in activism, |ts|(7) > 3.55, ps < .01. Both tests use a corrected alpha criterion for multiple comparisons: .05/4 = .0125.
6. A four-paired samples t-test was later conducted to confirm that there was no significant difference in attractiveness between monoracial and multiracial faces for Black candidates, |ts|(11) < 2.53, ps > .027, and for Asian candidates, |ts|(6) < 2.47, ps > .048. Both tests use a corrected alpha criterion for multiple comparisons: .05/4 = .0125.
7. Prototypicality (i.e., whether the candidate was multiracial or monoracial) was not included as a factor in the analysis given that we specified “votes for multiracial candidate” as the pre-registered dependent variable.
8. All other comparisons were non-significant, ps > .11. Furthermore, all other two-way interactions and three-way interaction were non-significant, ps > .28.
9. Some participants did not complete ratings for all pairs; thus, the sample sizes are different.
10. Racially prototypical statements for Black (Asian) candidates were high in prototypicality for Black (Asian) community members.
11. Based on recommendations from an anonymous reviewer, a four-paired samples t-test was later conducted to determine if activism and prototypical statements differed in activism. The results showed that for Asian statements, most pairs were significantly different in activism, ts > 3.40, ps < .005, but one was not, (t(8) = 2.87, p = .021). For Black statements, one pair was statistically different in activism (t(4) = 12.55, p < .001), while all other pairs were not statistically different in activism, ts(4) < 4.05, ps > .015. Both tests use a corrected alpha criterion for multiple comparisons: .05/4 = .0125.
12. A similar four-paired samples t-test was conducted for racial prototypicality. The results showed that none of the Asian or Black statements were significantly different in prototypicality, ts < 1.90, ps > .09. Both tests use a corrected alpha criterion for multiple comparisons: .05/4 = .0125. While this is not ideal, we do not believe it affected the results of the study, such that Black and Asian participants still preferred candidates that displayed activism over racially prototypical behaviors.
13. Some pretesters were the same individuals from the statement pretesting.
14. Based on recommendations from an anonymous reviewer, a four paired samples t-test was run to determine whether there were attractiveness rating differences for the pretest stimuli. For Black candidates, there was no significant difference in attractiveness ratings between monoracial and multiracial faces selected, |ts|(10) < 2.36, ps > .03. For Asian candidates, there was also no significant difference in attractiveness ratings between monoracial and multiracial faces selected, |ts|(10) < 2.55, ps > .028. These tests use a corrected alpha criterion for multiple comparisons: .05/4 = .0125.
15. Significant main effects: qualification (F(1, 110) = 24.45, p < .001) and prototypicality (F(1, 110) = 7.32, p = .008).
16. Significant two-way interactions: Qualification x Participant race (F(1, 110) = 5.05, p = .03) and Qualification x prototypicality (F(1, 110) = 12.90, p < .001).
