Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-662rr Total loading time: 0.54 Render date: 2022-05-28T10:42:27.133Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

SOCIALLY DESIRABLE REPORTING AND THE EXPRESSION OF BIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS OF RACE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2019

Ann Morning*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, New York University
Hannah Brückner
Affiliation:
Division of Social Science, New York University Abu Dhabi
Alondra Nelson
Affiliation:
School of Social Science, Institute for Advanced Study
*
*Corresponding author: Professor Ann Morning, Department of Sociology, New York University, 295 Lafayette St. Rm. 4118, New York, NY 10012. Email: ann.morning@nyu.edu

Abstract

In recent decades, dramatic developments in genetics research have begun to transform not only the practice of medicine but also conceptions of the social world. In the media, in popular culture, and in everyday conversation, Americans routinely link genetics to individual behavior and social outcomes. At the same time, some social researchers contend that biological definitions of race have lost ground in the United States over the last fifty years. At the crossroads of two trends—on one hand, the post-World War II recoil from biological accounts of racial difference, and on the other, the growing admiration for the advances of genetic science—the American public’s conception of race is a phenomenon that merits greater attention from sociologists than it has received to date. However, survey data on racial attitudes has proven to be significantly affected by social desirability bias. While a number of studies have attempted to measure social desirability bias with regard to racial attitudes, most have focused on racial policy preferences rather than genetic accounts of racial inequality. We employ a list experiment to create an unobtrusive measure of support for a biologistic understanding of racial inequality. We show that one in five non-Black Americans attribute income inequality between Black and White people to unspecified genetic differences between the two groups. We also find that this number is substantially underestimated when using a direct question. The magnitude of social desirability effects varies, and is most pronounced among women, older people, and the highly-educated.

Type
State of the Art
Copyright
Copyright © Hutchins Center for African and African American Research 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Apostle, Richard A., Glock, Charles Y., Piazza, Thomas, and Suelzle, Marijean (1983). The Anatomy of Racial Attitudes. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Barkan, Elazar (1992). The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States Between the World Wars. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bliss, Catherine (2012). Race Decoded: The Genomic Fight for Social Justice. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bliss, Catherine (2018). Social by Nature: The Promise and Peril of Sociogenomics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bobo, Lawrence D. (2001). Racial Attitudes and Relations at the Close of the Twentieth Century. In Smelser, Neil J., Wilson, William Julius, and Mitchell, Faith (Eds.), America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, pp. 264301. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Bobo, Lawrence, and Kluegel, James R. (1993). Opposition to Race-Targeting: Self-Interest, Stratification Ideology, or Racial Attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58(4): 443464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobo, Lawrence, Kluegel, James R., and Smith, Ryan A. (1997). Laissez-Faire Racism: The Crystallization of a Kinder, Gentler, Antiblack Ideology. In Tuch, Steven A. and Martin, Jack K. (Eds.), Racial Attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and Change, pp. 1542. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo (2003). Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers (2015). Grounds for Difference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, William L., and Thorne, Betty (1997). Applied Statistical Methods for Business, Economics, and the Social Sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., and Bodmer, W. F. (1971). The Genetics of Human Populations. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Condit, Celeste M., Parrott, Roxanne L., Harris, Tina M., Lynch, John, and Dubriwny, Tasha (2004). The Role of ‘Genetics’ in Popular Understandings of Race in the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3): 249272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Condit, Celeste Michelle (1999). The Meanings of the Gene: Public Debates about Human Heredity. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Conley, Dalton, and Fletcher, Jason (2017). The Genome Factor: What the Social Genomics Revolution Reveals about Ourselves, Our History, and the Future. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, Richard S. (2003). Race, Genes, and Health: New Wine in Old Bottles? International Journal of Epidemiology, 32(1): 2325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, Darren W. (1997). Nonrandom Measurement Error and Race of Interviewer Effects Among African Americans. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61 (1, Special Issue on Race): 183207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duster, Troy (1990). Backdoor to Eugenics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fowler, Floyd J. (1995). Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Frankenberg, Ruth (1993). White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujimura, Joan H., and Rajagopalan, Ramya (2011). Different Differences: The Use of ‘Genetic Ancestry’ versus Race in Biomedical Human Genetic Research. Social Studies of Science, 41(1): 530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gergen, Kenneth J. (1998). Constructionist Dialogues and the Vicissitudes of the Political. In Velody, Irving and Williams, Robin (Eds.), The Politics of Constructionism, pp. 3348. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, Joseph L. (2001). The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Hasson, Katie, and Darnovsky, Marcy (2018). Gene-edited Babies: No One Has the Moral Warrant to Go it Alone. The Guardian, November 27. <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/27/gene-edited-babies-no-one-has-moral-warrant-go-it-alone> (Accessed May 23, 2019).Google Scholar
Heine, Steven J. (2017). DNA Is Not Destiny: The Remarkable, Completely Misunderstood Relationship between You and Your Genes. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke (2011). Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(494): 407416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Mary R. (1973). Education and Prejudice or Education and Response-Set? American Sociological Review, 38(3): 327339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackman, Mary R., and Muha, M. J. (1984). Education and Intergroup Attitudes: Moral Enlightenment, Superficial Democratic Commitment, or Ideological Refinement? American Sociological Review, 49(6): 151169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayaratne, Toby E. (2002). White and Black Americans’ Genetic Explanations for Perceived Gender, Class and Race Differences: The Psychology of Genetic Beliefs. In 2002 Human Genome Lecture Series, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH. Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. K. , and Marini, M. M. (1998). Bridging the Racial Divide in the United States: The Effect of Gender. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(3): 247258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, James (1993). Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kane, E. W., and Macaulay, L. J. (1993). Interviewer Gender and Gender Attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(1): 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kevles, Daniel J., and Hood, Leroy (Eds.) (1992). The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Krysan, Maria (1998). Privacy and the Expression of White Racial Attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(4): 506544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., Cobb, Michael D., and Gilens, Martin (1997). Racial Attitudes and the ‘New South’. Journal of Politics, 59(2): 323349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, James J., Wedow, Robbee, Okbay, Aysu, Kong, Edward, Maghzian, Omeed, Zacher, Meghan, Nguyen-Viet, Tuan Anh, Bowers, Peter, Sidorenko, Julia, Linnér, Richard Karlsson, et al. (2018). Gene Discovery and Polygenic Prediction from a Genome-wide Association Study of Educational Attainment in 1.1 Million Individuals. Nature Genetics, 50: 11121121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, Sandra S. J., Mountain, J., and Koenig, B. A. (2001). The Meanings of ‘Race’ in the New Genomics: Implications for Health Disparities Research. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, 1(1): 3375.Google ScholarPubMed
Lieberman, Leonard (1997). Gender and the Deconstruction of the Race Concept. American Anthropologist, 99(3): 545558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Leonard, and Jackson, Fatimah Linda C. (1995). Race and Three Models of Human Origin. American Anthropologist, 97(2): 231242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippman, Abby (1991). Prenatal Genetic Testing and Screening: Constructing Needs and Reinforcing Inequalities. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 17(1-2): 1550.Google Scholar
Littlefield, Alice, Lieberman, Leonard, and Reynolds, Larry T. (1982). Redefining Race: The Potential Demise of a Concept in Physical Anthropology. Current Anthropology, 23(6): 641655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morning, Ann (2008). Reconstructing Race in Science and Society: Biology Textbooks, 1952-2002. American Journal of Sociology, 114(1): 106137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morning, Ann (2011). The Nature of Race: How Scientists Think and Teach about Human Difference. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Moseson, Heidi, Gerdts, Caitlin, Dehlendorf, Christine, Hiatt, Robert A., and Vittinghoff, Eric (2017). Multivariable Regression Analysis of List Experiment Data on Abortion: Results from a Large, Randomly-selected Population Based Study in Liberia. Population Health Metrics, 15(1).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelkin, Dorothy, and Lindee, M. Susan (1995). The DNA Mystique: The Gene as Cultural Icon. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Nelson, Alondra (2016). The Social Life of DNA: Race, Reparations, and Reconciliation after the Genome. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Novembre, John, and Barton, Nicholas H. (2018). Tread Lightly Interpreting Polygenic Tests of Selection. Genetics, 208(4): 13511355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panofsky, Aaron (2014). Misbehaving Science: Controversy and the Development of Behavior Genetics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelan, Jo C., Link, Bruce G., and Feldman, Naumi M. (2013). The Genomic Revolution and Beliefs about Essential Racial Differences: A Backdoor to Eugenics? American Sociological Review, 78(2): 167191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Press, J., and Townsley, E. (1998). Wives’ and Husbands’ Housework Reporting: Gender, Class and Social Desirability. Gender & Society, 12(2): 188218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reardon, Jenny (2004). Decoding Race and Human Difference in a Genomic Age. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 15(3): 3865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, Wendy D., and Lyon, Katherine (2018). Genetic Ancestry Tests and Race: Who Takes Them, Why, and How Do They Affect Racial Identities? In Suzuki, Kazuko and von Vacano, Diego (Eds.), Reconsidering Race: Cross-Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Approaches, pp. 133169. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard, and Bobo, Lawrence (1988). Survey-based Experiments on White Racial Attitudes Toward Residential Segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 94(2): 273299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuman, Howard, Steeh, Charlotte, Bobo, Lawrence, and Krysan, Maria (1997). Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, Tom (1998). Social Constructionism as a Political Strategy. In Velody, Irving and Williams, Robin (Eds.), The Politics of Constructionism, pp. 168181. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanklin, Eugenia (2000). Representations of Race and Racism in American Anthropology. Current Anthropology, 41(1): 99103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sniderman, Paul M., Piazza, Thomas, Tetlock, Philip E., and Kendrick, Ann (1991). The New Racism. American Journal of Political Science, 35(2): 423447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, Jerry A., Reynolds, Larry T., and Lieberman, Leonard (1979). The Social Basis of Conceptual Diversity: A Case Study of the Concept of ‘Race’ in Physical Anthropology. In Jones, Robert Alun and Kuklick, Henrika. (Eds.) Research in Sociology of Knowledge, Sciences and Art: Volume 2, pp. 8799. Greenwich, CT : JAI Press.Google Scholar
Stepan, Nancy (1982). The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800–1960. London: Archon Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theriault, S., and Holmberg, D. (1998). The New Old-Fashioned Girl: Effects of Gender and Social Desirability on Reported Gender Role Ideology. Sex Roles, 39(1): 97112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1952). The Race Concept: Results of an Inquiry. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Wailoo, Keith (1999). Drawing Blood: Technology and Disease Identity in Twentieth-Century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
9
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

SOCIALLY DESIRABLE REPORTING AND THE EXPRESSION OF BIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS OF RACE
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

SOCIALLY DESIRABLE REPORTING AND THE EXPRESSION OF BIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS OF RACE
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

SOCIALLY DESIRABLE REPORTING AND THE EXPRESSION OF BIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS OF RACE
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *