The biological concept of race has long been controversial in psychology. Although many psychologists have challenged the concept of race, others have espoused it as a deductive premise and applied it as an inferential and research factor and variable, especially regarding Black-White IQ differences. Although race and its use have been polemically disputed for decades, no disciplinewide, concerted action within psychology has been taken to ascertain the scientific meaning of race and to determine its proper application. Psychology's inaction contrasts with deliberate steps taken by other national and international scientific groups. This article examines a variety of problems concerning race in psychology: (a) definition, (b) application, (c) invoking authority and references for genetic knowledge, and (d) passive inaction by psychologists and professional associations.

This article reviews an application of sociobiological perspectives on “racial” differences, focusing on the work of J. P. Rushton. Rushton has concluded that, as a result of evolutionary processes, the three major “racial” groups may be hierarchically ranked such that Mongoloids > Caucasoids > Negroids. The assumptions and evidence presumably supportive of Rushton's sociobiological perspective are reviewed and critiqued. The concept of “race” is politically defined; the Darwinian arguments are teleological; theoretical constructs are flawed; and the empirical data bases are frequently misrepresented. This area of research is discussed in terms of the ideological underpinnings of social science inquiry, and the goals and functions of scholarship in contemporary society.

This study examined the impact of three ethnic labels—Chicanos, Hispanics, and Mexican Americans—on the stereotyping behavior of a sample of white university undergraduates. Using the Katz and Braly (1933) paradigm, two hypotheses were tested. First, it was expected that “Chicanos” would receive a larger percentage of subjects selecting negative stereotypes than would “Hispanics” or “Mexican Americans” (Mexican Americans were expected to be stereotyped most positively). Second, the rate of stereotyping behavior was expected to be affected in similar ways. Results gave modest support for the first hypothesis—Chicanos were more often viewed as ignorant and cruel, for example—but only obtained nonsignificant trends for the second hypothesis. These results are discussed in terms of the importance of ethnic labels in racial attitude development and maintenance and of the need for additional research.