In March 2008 Gregory Parks and Jeffrey Rachlinski published the article, “Expertinent: The Political Psychology of Race and Gender,” which discusses the thought process behind choosing a candidate for election. They touch on implicit decision making at the last minute in voting booths. For example, many white Americans, not wanting to be called racist, outwardly (photo: mhaithaca) support Obama but inwardly are in conflict with their decision and carry that inconsistency into the voting booth.
The article states that implicitly that, “People associate black with negative imagery.”
Obama, in his campaign, is seeking to overcome the negative associations of being African American with—among other things–images of patriotism and family, funneled through the media and especially his website, with a photo of his wife and daughters on the home page. They point out that his task in fighting racialized attacks is very difficult:
When a black leader seems to be running away from his image as a black person, that’s viewed negatively. In order to keep his base, then, he can’t deny that he’s black. It’s a thin line that he has to toe.
He must work to replace the negative racial imagery generated by the white racial frame with positive images and associations of who he really is, though all of these form a layer that is in front of the already existing, often covert, white racial frame. The positive images are evaluated by many whites through the negative white racial frame, resulting in a clash of identities, a crisis of sorts. They note:
If images of Americanness make white Americans see Obama as less American at the implicit level–while at the explicit level rivals are questioning his patriotism–then he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
Since every Obama image is sifted by whites through the white racial frame, will Obama’s positive images stick, when it is already recognized that evidence refuting the frame does not affect it but evidence to support it only makes it stronger?
The reaction to act implicitly on an election decision on the basis of race is called the “Bradley Effect” (more accurately, the white racism effect) referenced to the New Hampshire primary:
The tendency for poll numbers to overstate support for a black candidate in a black vs. white election. The states that showed the paradigmatic Bradley effect are New Hampshire, California, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The states that showed the reverse effect are Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia.
The “Bradley Effect” is a perfect example of frontstage racism versus backstage racism where voters appear to support Obama or another black candidate in their public comments, like to pollsters, but inside or with relatives and friends they harbor or espouse racist views that keep them from voting for that candidate in the backstage or the voting booth.
~ Amanda & Hannah
Amanda and Hannah are advanced undergraduate students at Texas A&M University doing a major research project on the numerous racial aspects of the current U.S. presidential campaign–with a special focus on the unique reality and impacts of having the first Black candidate for a major political party in the campaign. They will be guest blogging with us on their research findings over the next few months. ~ Joe