by Matthew Rosenfield | Experiments investigate the reason behind the different outlooks of blacks and whites.
Professor Richard Eibach of Yale University stood in front of a classroom to present the claim that whites and blacks have a significantly different outlook toward the present and recent history as a result of the races’ more distant histories. Perhaps Tufts did not need an esteemed professor decrying such a known difference in races: hopefully nobody is naïve or arrogant enough to think that races share everything in common including, among other things, the perception of the African American race’s ascension to arguable equality throughout the twentieth century. The psychology researcher professionally observed at the outset that a marked difference exists between the races, and then queried as to why these adverse differences exist and how society may minimize them.
The question to be investigated was why whites generally view blacks as coming much closer to equality in the last century than blacks do. Eibach’s speech was a tremendous overview of the limited research on the subject, accompanied by a slideshow. The first half of the lecture showed definitively that whites’ and blacks’ views are not compatible on nearly any level. Whites feel that blacks enjoy as much equality as possible nowadays, whereas blacks feel that they still have obstacles to squash. To demonstrate the fact, Eibach encapsulated in his slides a number of polls comprised over the last decade or so, most of which had one general scheme. White and black subjects were asked to choose which of several statements best described the status of blacks in today’s America. The polls all found quite a significant difference in how the races viewed the black race’s status.
The second half of the lecture tried to show why these incompatible perceptions exist. The second part used exclusively Eibach’s own experiments to try to answer the pending question. Research besides his is very limited or nonexistent with regards to his specific inquiry, and so it is understandable that he utilized only his own. Still, just as one would want a second medical opinion, the research is not definitive until peers can confirm the work. Eibach did on occasion seem to draw certain conclusions from his experiments that were not designed to allow such conclusions to be drawn. For this reason, the experiments may not so much need to redone as they need to be reevaluated for what they are testing.
The take-home conclusion was that historically-dominant people view rights and status as zero-sum quantities; that is, a rise in status of the subordinate group equates to a loss in status of the dominant group. The key, then, is that whites, having been the privileged class, view a loss in status as a greater absolute deviation from the status quo. Blacks see a corresponding gain in status, per the psychological principle of loss aversion. As a result, whites see blacks as equals because, by loss aversion, the Caucasian race feels they have lost a lot more than they actually have.
One could certainly argue that it seems irrational that whites feel they have lost a lot in the past decades, and consequently believe that blacks must be equal by this point in the timeline. However, Eibach expertly produced a series of experimental arrangements at Yale that could allow for such a conclusion, and he convincingly explained the experiments that allowed him to make such a theory. The conclusion never appeared farfetched, anomalous, fallacious, or contrived.
One key corollary found in the lecture was that white people look at how life used to be, whereas black people look at how life should be. Eibach revealed how this was true with a set of experiments that used intentional framing effects to suggest to the subjects how they should evaluate equality between the races. Eibach found race not to be a factor in assessing the conditions in America when asking subjects, for instance, “Compared to fifty years ago, would you say that conditions for blacks have improved, stayed the same, or gotten worse?” The results of these experiments with the frame of the question as the variable matched perfectly to the results of the experiments when the race of the person answering a standard question was the variable.
As extensive as the experiments were, age was never considered to be a factor in Eibach’s own experiments. Age was mentioned once throughout the presentation in a quarter of a slide, with regards to a poll that was not Eibach’s. A bullet noted how the age of the subjects did in fact matter significantly, but Eibach made no further mention of the factor beyond that one bullet stuck between other more noteworthy facts. Every one of the lecturer’s experiments conveniently tested people within a young adult age range.
So then, it might be a little less astounding as to why the black subjects in Eibach’s experiments invariably thought that the historically-subordinate race was not yet on par with the white race. Elderly blacks would certainly be more willing to call themselves equals than younger members of the race because they lived through a rough time in America’s history. Nonetheless, the simple fact that any members of once subordinate races do not view themselves as yet equals is telling, to say the least. One would probably have to admit then that something is not yet ideal, regardless of how the majority of whites feel. The issue cannot be ignored, because the world cannot be wholly content when a large group of people is not.
Mr. Rosenfield is a sophomore majoring in Engineering Physics.
Comments