Is Only Fair Lovely in Indian Politics? Consequences of Skin Color in a Survey Experiment in Delhi

Abstract

Adoration for fair skin color and bias against dark skin color are strong in Indian society. The theory of colorism suggests that, irrespective of a voter’s own phenotype, voters prefer lighter- to darker-skinned candidates. And yet, a substantial number of dark-skinned politicians get elected into office in India. In the first systematic study of voter preferences for candidate skin color in India, we conducted a survey experiment in which respondents were randomly administered one of three treatments based upon candidate skin tone: fair, wheatish (medium-brown), and dark. We find only weak evidence for colorism in the sample as a whole—the fair candidate is supported more than the dark and wheatish candidates, but at only marginal significance levels. This is because color preferences are heterogeneous amongst respondent groups. Dalits and the poor, groups that are darker relative to other groups and have been politically mobilized, exhibit much stronger support for dark candidates than other groups, consistent with a desire for descriptive representation. Amongst those who do not belong to these two groups, including dark respondents, the fair candidate finds more support than the dark candidate. This shows that even in the absence of skin color-based electoral appeals, skin color can emerge as an implicit marker of politically mobilized identities, and that this mobilization can undercut colorism.

Gender bias, social bias, and representation in Bollywood and Hollywood

“…Skin color biases have been reported in the context of fairness beauty products, 14 Indian arranged marriages, 15 and surprisingly, political outcomes in India. 16 While Shevde 14 raises an important point that several Bollywood celebrities endorse skin-whitening products, to the best of our knowledge, no large-scale analysis S1 in the supplemental information to avoid visual clutter. of fair skin color and beauty in Bollywood (or Hollywood) content exists thus far.…”

“…[74][75][76] Skin color biases have been reported in the context of fairness beauty products in India, 14 Indian arranged marriages, 15 and surprisingly, political outcomes in India. 16 We first present our cloze test results with the probe ''A beautiful woman should have [MASK] skin.'' in Table 5.…”

Do Voters Prefer Just Any Descriptive Representative? The Case of Multiracial Candidates

“…Of course, other factors may matter. It is possible that by varying race, voters make inferences about the candidate’s qualifications (McConnaughy et al 2010), phenotype or attractiveness (Abrajano, Elmendorf, and Quinn 2018; Ahuja, Ostermann, and Mehta 2016; Banducci et al 2008; Lawson et al 2010; Lerman, McCabe, and Sadin 2015; Pauker et al 2018; Terkildsen 1993), language ability (Monforti, Michelson, and Franco 2013), fit with racial stereotypes (Bejarano 2013), or even “Americanness” (Visalvanich 2017). Another explanation may be a belief that the candidate, by being multiracial, is generally more progressive than monoracial candidates (Davenport 2016a), though partisanship was built into this experiment.…”

“…Whereas the discourse on representation often focuses on politicians of color and their monoracial backgrounds, multiracial categorization is a stark contrast (Brewer 1991, 478). Lighter-skinned candidates, who in the minds of voters could be classified as multiracial, enjoy an evaluative advantage (Ahuja, Ostermann, and Mehta 2016; Kinder and McConnaughy 2006, 159; Terkildsen 1993; Weaver 2012). Multiracial people are fetishized as “attractive” (Sims 2012; Skinner, Perry, and Gaither 2019), receive more attention in the online dating scene (Curington, Lin, and Lundquist 2015), have higher socioeconomic statuses (Davenport 2016b), and live in less segregated neighborhoods than do monoracial people (Bennett 2011).…”

Melanin and Curls: Evaluation of Black Women Candidates

“…Terkildsen's (1993) study on White evaluations of lighter and darker Black men candidates illustrated the complex relationship between prejudice toward Blacks (1,051) and the tendency to "self-monitor" (1,037), where the most prejudiced Whites without a filter expressed more support for a lighter-skinned candidate, while those with a filter inflated their support for a darker-skinned candidate (1,046). While we do not include measures of prejudice or self-monitoring in our study, we suggest that for Black respondents, racial prejudice and self-monitoring may not apply to evaluations of Black women candidates, as there is a descriptive representative element to evaluations of Black women candidates (i.e., Mansbridge 1999; for an analysis of respondent skin tone and candidate skin tone outside the American context, see Ahuja, Ostermann, and Mehta 2016).…”