New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe