The Electoral Consequences of Skin Color: The “Hidden” Side of Race in Politics

Abstract

Despite the significant role that skin color plays in material well-being and social perceptions, scholars know little if anything about whether skin color and afrocentric features influence political cognition and behavior and specifically, if intraracial variation in addition to categorical difference affects the choices of voters. Do more phenotypically black minorities suffer an electoral penalty as they do in most aspects of life? This study investigates the impact of color and phenotypically black facial features on candidate evaluation, using a nationally representative survey experiment of over 2000 whites. Subjects were randomly assigned to campaign literature of two opposing candidates, in which the race, skin color and features, and issue stance of candidates was varied. I find that afrocentric phenotype is an important, albeit hidden, form of bias in racial attitudes and that the importance of race on candidate evaluation depends largely on skin color and afrocentric features. However, like other racial cues, color and black phenotype don't influence voters' evaluations uniformly but vary in magnitude and direction across the gender and partisan makeup of the electorate in theoretically explicable ways. Ultimately, I argue, scholars of race politics, implicit racial bias, and minority candidates are missing an important aspect of racial bias.

Accentuating the Negative: Candidate Race and Campaign Strategy

“…The findings here also contribute to recent research examining the possibility that pro-Black attitudes may actually lead some Whites to favor Black candidates (Kinder & Dale-Riddle, 2011;Petrow, 2010;Sniderman & Stiglitz, 2009;Tesler, 2012;Tesler & Sears, 2010;Weaver, 2012). While previous analyses of this possibility have primarily relied on observational data, making causal inference difficult, the experimental results presented here are suggestive of both the power and the limits of pro-Black attitudes.…”

“…The measurement of racial attitudes is also difficult because of concerns about social desirability. We deal with this concern in two ways: first, following previous research on candidate race (e.g., Sniderman & Stiglitz, 2009;Weaver, 2012), the survey is conducted online in an anonymous setting, which may increase honest reporting of socially sensitive issues (Chang & Krosnick, 2009). Second, given the tendency of respondents to "opt out" of some racial attitude questions by rating groups at the midpoint (e.g., Huddy & Feldman, 2009), we asked respondents who said the amount of influence that Blacks have is "about right" the following question: "If you had to choose, would you say Blacks have too much or too little influence?"…”

“…We expect different results for White individuals who are positively predisposed or "sympathetic" toward Blacks, some of whom may actually prefer Black candidates (see Colleau et al, 1990;Kinder & Dale-Riddle, 2011;Petrow, 2010;Sniderman & Stiglitz, 2009;Tesler, 2012;Tesler & Sears, 2010;Weaver, 2012, for evidence of White preference for Black candidates). Since such voters are positively predisposed toward Black candidates, they may actually be more likely to judge Black-sponsored negativity to be situational than White-sponsored negativity.…”

Countering Implicit Appeals: Which Strategies Work?

“…White voters are positively affected by counter-stereotypical media portrayals, as in the case of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign (Goldman & Mutz, 2014). Weaver's (2012) experimental study finds no effect of candidate race on average. Hajnal (2007) finds that White voting for Black candidates rises substantially after the electorate experiences a Black candidate serving in office.…”

“…More recent experiments have also uncovered some forms of racial bias. Weaver (2012) finds that conservatives and men are biased against dark-skinned candidates. Studies of opposition to Barack Obama find that racial resentment or stereotypes depressed support for his candidacy and/or continue to play an important role in shaping opinions of his presidency (Banks, 2013;Berinsky et al, 2010;Goldman & Mutz, 2014;Jackman & Vavreck, 2011;Kinder & Dale-Riddle, 2012;Piston, 2010;Tesler & Sears, 2010).…”