The Persistence of Racism

Recent research concludes that although people predict they will react negatively to racial slurs, their behavior proves otherwise. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

With the historic inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama next week, we reach a momentous moment in the fight against prejudice.

Yet, we also know that prejudice remains.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


And recent research in the journal Science has uncovered a curious paradox. While many of us say we’d react negatively to a racial slur, many of us, in practice, do not react negatively at all. In fact, many may support it.

In an experiment nonblack, multicultural subjects witness a white student (an actor) responding with a racial slur when a black student (also an actor) accidentally bumps their knee.

Subjects were then given an emotional test, and most were found to be unaffected, even though in a separate experiment subjects claimed they’d be very distressed if they’d overheard a racial slur. In addition, even though subjects predicted they would choose the black student over the racist white student to be their partner for a project, a majority, after hearing the racial slur, chose the white student. (And this choice was made more often than in the control condition where the subjects heard no racial slur.)

Researchers conclude that while many think and say they are egalitarian, there appear to be negative, perhaps subconscious, beliefs that still hold us in their angry grip.

—Christie Nicholson

60-Second Psych is a weekly podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast:

RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe