Racial Triangulation, Interracial Closeness, and Racial Policy Attitudes

Background/Purpose: Contrary to the aspirations of a post-racial America with the election of the first Black president, entrenched racial tensions resurfaced during Obama’s presidency and continues to intensify under the current administration. In light of this year’s theme, “Reducing Racial and Economic Inequality,” the present study examines how racial stratification and system-legitimizing stereotypes influence interracial feelings of closeness and racial policy preferences. In an effort to move beyond the conventional Black-White paradigm, the study relies on the framework of racial triangulation to explain interracial closeness and racial policy attitudes. Specifically, it looks at whether system-legitimizing racial stereotypes distance and divide minority groups for the sake of preserving the existing racial hierarchy and harm cross-racial support for policies that advance minority interests, such as affirmative action.

Method: The study uses a national sample of 3,339 respondents in the U.S., of which 919 are non-Hispanic White; 756 are African American; 404 Caribbean Black; 757 are Hispanic; and 503 are Asian, from the National Politics Study (NPS, 2004). Standard OLS with robust standard errors as well as ordinal logistic regressions are run for the models.

Results: The study finds empirical support for racial triangulation as racial stereotypes distanced minority groups from each other relative to their respective feelings toward Whites. As for racial policy attitudes, ordinal logistic results show that symbolic racism and political ideology still remain the most consistent and salient predictors of people’s opinions on affirmative action policies. However, it finds partial support for the role of legitimizing myths in explaining attitudes toward affirmative action. The more Whites endorsed the view that Asians were harder working than Blacks, the less likely they were to express supportive views on affirmative action policies. As for Asians, the more aware they were of their outsider status, the more supportive they were of affirmative action policies. Although the association was only marginally significant, substantively, it suggests possibilities for empathizing with Blacks and prospects for coalition-building among marginalized groups. However, racial triangulation did not explain Blacks’ views on affirmative action policies.

Conclusions/Implications: The present study empirically tests racial triangulation theory and shows that racial attitudes are not static and that they should be understood in the dynamic context of group position and racial order. People’s attitudes change depending on which and how many groups are taken into consideration when determining their perceptions, beliefs, and feelings toward these groups and policies that support them. Additionally, by utilizing the racial triangulation theory, the legitimizing myth approach is able to move beyond the focus on Whites’ attitudes toward racial policies and examine the stances of minorities, such as Blacks and Asians. Implications for policy and practice, especially with respect to political mobilization and interracial coalition-building, will be discussed.