| Title |
Differentiating Contemporary Racial Prejudice from Old-Fashioned Racial Prejudice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Race and Social Problems, June 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12552-009-9010-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tony N. Brown, Mark K. Akiyama, Ismail K. White, Toby Epstein Jayaratne, Elizabeth S. Anderson |
| Abstract |
The present study addresses the distinction between contemporary and old-fashioned prejudice using survey data from a national sample (n=600) of self-identified whites living in the United States and interviewed by telephone in 2001. First, we examine associations among indicators of contemporary and old-fashioned prejudice. Consistent with the literature, contemporary and old-fashioned prejudice indicators represent two distinct but correlated common factors. Second, we examine whether belief in genetic race differences uniformly predicts both types of prejudice. As might be expected, belief in genetic race differences predicts old-fashioned prejudice but contrary to recent theorizing, it also predicts contemporary prejudice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 40 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 37% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 208. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2023.
All research outputs
#170,548
of 23,852,694 outputs
Outputs from Race and Social Problems
#6
of 256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#383
of 115,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Race and Social Problems
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,852,694 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 115,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them