There are many variables and issues that can affect how one perceives and understands social situations. In the social sciences, researchers believe variables such as age, socioeconomic status or education are important in determining how a person will perceive or react. In this study, two possible variables that might influence perceptions are race and degree of proximity. Data was collected to test if these variables do influence perceptions. The end of the chapter discusses the importance of correct data interpretation.

    Blacks and whites might have differing perceptions because they have undergone different experiences. As a minority group, blacks might ascribe any differences in status or benefits to racism. Joe Feagin (1984:5) defines racism as:
 

An ideology which considers a group's unchangeable physical characteristics to be linked in a direct, causal way to psychological or intellectual characteristics, and which on this basis distinguishes between superior and inferior racial groups.
 

the ideology contending that actual or alleged differences between different racial groups assert the superiority of one racial group ... racism serves the interest of the group endorsing it ... which becomes the chief beneficiary of political, economic, and social discrimination.

This ideology of white superiority provided the justification for white Europeans to bring enslaved Africans to America and begin years of oppression and discrimination (slavery, Jim Crow, "symbolic/modern racism") against black Americans. According to Christopher Doob (1993:xi), "racism is deeply woven into our cultural fabric" so that anti-black feelings are held by many whites, be it very mild or severe. Sandra Van Dyk (1993:78) concurs by stating "American society, its language, its structures, and its ideologies form an overarching framework in which the absence of racism is impossible because racism is inherent in the society itself."

In a racist society, a black person's perception of the world will be different from a white person's perception because their experiences and knowledge of each other are different (White 1993). Moreover, in a racist society, the minority's perception of the majority group is derived from personal experiences more often than the majority's perception of the minority group which is mostly derived from other sources such as the mass media. One group of researchers state:
 

... Both of these cases compare two different worlds, one black and one white. A striking aspect of the contrast between these worlds is the source of each group's knowledge of the other: blacks views of whites are primarily grounded in concrete everyday experiences with many whites, while most whites' views of blacks come from the mass media, parents, relatives, and other traditional sources of stereotypical knowledge rather from direct experiences. Both cases show white men, women, and children living in a spatial and psychological "bubble," separated for the most part from the world of African Americans, with the mass media doubtless providing their primary window to the black world (Feagin and Vera 1995:20).

A recent study offers some support for Feagin and Vera's hypothesis about differing experiences. A group of researchers found that issues such as which type of television one watched (sports or news) influenced how whites viewed blacks (Armstrong et al 1992). If white students watched more news programs than sporting events, they perceived blacks as being worse off than whites as opposed to students who viewed sports or entertainment events. The latter group, who watched sports, thought that blacks overall were better off than whites. In another example provided by Feagin and Vera, a young college student quoted in their book said,
 

Most white people feel, I think, detached from blacks in the sense that they are kinda in their own world and blacks are kinda in their own world. You look at them through a looking glass and say, "Hmm, isn't that interesting what that black family's doing or what that black couple's doing, or what those black teenagers like to listen to, or like to dance, how they like to dance." And things like that. But they don't really identity that well or aren't that close with them totally (Feagin and Vera 1995:140).

Blacks and whites perceive differently because they have different experiences. A white person, according to Doob, is reaping the many benefits (political, economic, and social) contained within a racist society. Blacks, on the other hand, are not receiving the political, economic or social benefits the white majority enjoys. Hypothetically, if a black and a white man are living in the same town and apply for the same job but racism is present, how each man views the situation differently because racism affects each man differently. For blacks, racism is a plausible explanation regarding jobs, housing and police treatment (Tables 3-5). Their experiences, personal and historical, have taught them time and time again, being black is a disadvantage. A contemporary example includes the videotaping of different incidences of discrimination (Prime Time Live 1991) showing two equal candidates, one black and one whites, receiving unequal treatment. These experiences can be used by blacks to strengthen their belief in racism.

Racism also allows certain feelings to be believed and passed down from generation to generation because people gain information primarily through we-relations. This information is applied to out-groups so that group characteristics are based on ideal types. Schutz emphasizes this process when talking about the accumulation of stocks of knowledge. When whites are presented with evidence that blacks and whites differ in terms of jobs or income, certain explanations are now plausible. "Racist notions of genetic or cultural inferiority help explain why there are great inequalities in a society with egalitarian ideals" (Feagin and Vera 1995:xiii). James Kluegal (1990) studied this belief in cultural inferiority in his study of trends in whites' explanations of the black-white gap in socioeconomic status. He hypothesized that whites would attribute the difference in socioeconomic status to a lack of motivation on the part of blacks as a "more socially acceptable way to express anti-black sentiment" (Kluegal 1990:513). One could not attribute the gap to structural forces because that would entail admitting society is unfair and the American principle of equality as false. When asked if things are "fair and equal," a white American who answers no might be acknowledging the system might not be fair and they might be receiving benefits because of their skin color, whether directly or indirectly.

In summary, since blacks constitute the minority group in most situations and are the targets of the racism, their perceptions of the social world might differ from whites because of different personal experiences and stocks of knowledge. Blacks might be more likely to see racism as an explanation for events than are whites.

Another variable that affects perceptions is degree of proximity. Degree of proximity indicates the amount of knowledge, exposure and/or contact one has with a particular vicinity. It can range from very specific to general. A good example of this variable is the chart constructed by Gordon Allport when he described the strength of in-group circles as shown in Figure 3 (Allport, 1954:43).
 

Hypothetically, the smaller the circle, the more likely a person is to be very familiar or knowledgeable about that particular environment. A person is much more familiar with a neighborhood than a whole state or nation because their level of contact is generally greater within the closer setting. And as Schutz argues, the strength of typification varies by distance: the more anonymous a person or situation becomes, the more rigorous will be the typification. This hypothesis explains why the next observation is plausible. There is a well-established finding in national adult samples that individuals will consistently rate closer environments more favorable than environments farther away regardless the issue. For example, people are more likely to claim anything (such as race relations, crime, schools etc.) is worse in the country, better in the community and best in the neighborhood as shown in Table 8. This is possible because many of the closer environments contain we-relations while perceptions of the country are they-relations.
 
 

In Table 8, in reference to crime, the differences in perceptions from a community standpoint to a national one is dramatic. Forty-seven percent of the sample rated crime as a not a problem ("good") in their community versus only 9 percent when referring to the whole country. The same pattern is observed with other issues such as schools and drugs. The degree of proximity provides some variation in response.
 
 

When one combines race and degree of proximity, one still observes differences (see Table 9). Both whites and blacks viewed discrimination at the state level as more of a problem than at the community level. Table 9 illustrates locale can influence perceptions regardless of race. Blacks who agreed that racial discrimination and prejudice were not a serious problem in their community (48 percent) decreased their level of agreement at the state level (23 percent). One observes this same type of pattern with white responses. The respondents rated the farther (and less familiar) environment harsher than the setting which was nearer. Racial differences do appear but race is not the only thing influencing perceptions.

In another study conducted at a small community college, Boughan (1992) tested for evidence of "spillover." Spillover was defined as when national issues or ideas would influence perceptions at the local level. If spillover occurred, a national issue that divided people by race should also divide people by race at the local level. But he found that while the student body was "not seriously divided by campus race-related questions; it [was] dramatically fractured over most national issues" indicating no spillover (Boughan 1992).

Another indication of the importance of proximity on perceptions is people's estimations of majority and minority populations in the United States. When subjects were asked to guess what percentage of the U.S. population was black or white, they responded as shown in Table 10.
 
 

Table 10: Misperceptions about the U.S. racial composition
What percentage of the U.S. is...	White response  ABC	Black response  ABC	True %  1994	White response  W/K/H	Black response  W/K/H	True %  1992
White	61%	61%	75%	49.9	45.5%	74%
Black	33%	37%	12%	23.8	25.9%	11.8%

As one can see, there is an underestimation of the white population as well as a dramatic overestimation of the black population by both whites and blacks when compared to their true numbers as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. Using the ABC News poll, whites sampled claimed blacks made up 33 percent of the population while blacks thought they comprised 37 percent of the total population. Even though both groups misperceived the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, they were both relatively similar in their misperceptions.

An article in the Washington Post (National Weekly Edition) gave multiple reasons for what they called the "Fundamental Ignorance about Numbers" (Gladwell 1995:7-8). One explanation was that the guesses were drawn from personal experiences.
 

I'm thinking of the people I know and work with. The white people are more prone to having one or two children whereas my black friends have three or four and sometimes five. Plus, from what I've seen on television, we're quickly becoming a minority.
- White Man who guessed blacks make up 40% of U.S. population

Level of contact, direct (personal) or indirect (television/mass media) became a major determinant in one's estimations of the population. Whites or blacks who had direct or indirect contact with many other blacks should overestimate the true percentage of blacks because that is what they saw. People who had limited contact should underestimate the percentages. So if one only watched NBA basketball or had a high level of contact with blacks at home or work, one might conclude blacks made up a higher percentage than they actually do. The poll shows that both groups are sharing some type of common knowledge because they were relatively similar in their estimations of each other.

Research documenting trends in racial attitudes for blacks and whites support hypotheses indicating there are perceptual differences when dealing with micro and macro issues. Schuman, Steeh and Bobo (1985) conclude white attitudes have become more favorable towards blacks but only to a point. For example, most whites agree in principle that blacks should receive fair housing, job opportunities and equal treatment. But their level of agreement decreases when implementation of those principles gets close to home and is enforced by the government. Schuman et al. conclude that "in all likelihood, the more impersonal and transient the interracial contact at issue, the more white support for integration; the more intimate and long-lasting the contact, the less the support" (Schuman, Steeh, and Bobo 1985:136). In another study, Nosworthy, Lea, and Lindsay (1995) found the same gulf between principles and implementation in attitudes toward affirmative action. Depending on the type of affirmative action plan (recruiting, special scholarships, reduced admission standards or quotas) and how close it was to implementation, whites differed in their degree of acceptance. They also discovered that programs supporting principles received more support than implementation. All these examples show how degree of proximity can influence perceptions.

Bledsoe et al. (1996) found similar results regarding personal versus impersonal experiences in their studies of Detroit, Michigan concerning discrimination and integration of neighborhoods. Racial differences appeared only when questions were asked about abstract events. For example, if a participant was asked if they had been discriminated against, they generally replied no but if they were asked if they knew someone who had or if they believed discrimination still existed, they said yes. Their research supports the level of proximity hypothesis that farther environments are judged more harshly than closer ones as well as the notion that personal experiences, which are tied to the degree of proximity, influence perceptions.

Lastly, some public opinion polls have addressed this notion regarding personal versus impersonal information gathering and the effect it has on perceptions. They posed questions to subjects asking their opinions about government and social issues. In one instance they asked subjects if their perceptions of national events were based on what they have seen or read in the news or was it based on personal experience (see Table 11). The results based on questions summarized in Table 8 indicated that most of the respondents' knowledge came from non-personal experiences. For example, 76 percent of the respondents said their perceptions of crime in the country were based on what they had read or seen in the news.
 
 

Table 11: Perceptions of the country: personal vs. impersonal experience
when you say the ( ) problem in this country is bad, is this based on what you've seen or read in the news, or is it based on your own personal experience.	school	crime	drugs
seen/read in news	41%	76%	72%
personal experience	56%	22%	26%

This difference in personal versus impersonal experiences influencing perceptions is seen in another example regarding perceptions of local, state and national governments. Subjects were asked how much they trusted their particular governments. People who responded negatively were then asked why they felt as they did. Results showed the farther the degree of proximity, the more likely the perception was based on media reports (see Table 12). For example, 55 percent of the subjects rating their local government said their opinions were based on personal experiences while only 32 percent said personal experience guided their opinions when dealing with the national government.
 
 

Table 12: Perceptions of the government by degree of proximity: personal vs. impersonal experience
of those who trust the govt. some/none of the time, do you say that mainly because of what you've heard or read, or because of things you've personally experienced	local govt.	state govt.	national govt.
Heard/read in news	43%	50%	65%
personal experience	55%	47%	32%

In summary, degree of proximity appears to influence perceptions. As Schutz explained, as distance increases, people rely more and more on ideal types. Prior research indicates the greater the distance between the perceived and the location, the more negative the location is perceived.

A major focus of this project is on correct data interpretation. Often, the response commonly reported to the public is the polar or collapsed response, which serves to highlight and accentuate racial differences. A collapsed response is when researchers combine response categories. In Table 13, the collapsed categories are net good or net bad.
 
 

But, when one combines the two categories into net good, different interpretations can be made. For example, saying 76 percent of blacks think race relations are not good or poor yields a different interpretation than 38 percent of blacks think relations are poor while another 38 percent feel they are not good.

Another problem in data interpretation deals with relevance. In statistics, something can be statistically significant but not relevant or practical. In today's research-oriented pressure-packed academic and news information fields, the rush to achieve a significant result has lead to a relaxation of relevance. Often, the variable race in studies is statistically significant but not always relevant. For example, does knowing one's race add any practical value to understanding the problem even though the variable is statistically significant? Nonetheless, because race is such an emotional and touchy issue, scientists and lay people continually concentrate on this one variable.

Another problem in the interpretation of data is the use of dichotomous categories because they do not allow for measures of variability found in the population. In the tables presented in Chapter I, many response choices were "either/or" categories which are far too simplistic for measuring human perception. "Agree" vs. "disagree" measures the extreme or polar responses and not the degree to which one agrees or disagrees with a statement. For example, in Table 4 regarding opinions on housing opportunities, the only categories are "fair and equal" and "unequal." A person who feels housing conditions are slightly unequal cannot be separated from someone who feels housing conditions are very unequal.

In conclusion, Gordon Allport (1954) stated that one of the main problems facing social scientists was interpreting differences. Are the differences real? If real differences do exist, do they really matter? The emphasis within this study is to document where differences and similarities exist. If differences do appear, what do they mean and do they matter? By looking at race and the degree of proximity, as well as using a continuous scale allowing for variability in responses, I hope to provide a better understanding of the process of perceptions.
 
 

The goal of this project is to examine the influence of race and proximity on the perceptions of whites and blacks regarding racial issues. The main questions of this study are:

Question #1: Do blacks and whites perceive racial issues differently?

Question #2: How does degree of proximity influence perceptions of racial issues?

The following hypotheses are proposed:

H₁: Blacks will report more pessimistic views than whites.

H₂: Whites and blacks will rate any issue as getting progressively worse as the degree of proximity becomes more distant.

H₃: Blacks and whites will have divergent opinions on every issue.

Table of Contents

Chpt. 1

Chpt. 2

Chpt. 3

Chpt. 4

Chpt. 5

Chpt. 6

Chpt. 7