Differences in helping whites and blacks: A meta-analysis

Donald A. Saucier, Carol T. Miller, Nicole Doucet

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

127 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The amount of help given to Blacks versus Whites is often assumed to reflect underlying levels of racism (or lack thereof). This meta-analysis assessed discrimination against Blacks in helping studies. The overall effect size for the 48 hypothesis tests did not show universal discrimination against Blacks (d = .03, p = .103). However, consistent with the predictions of aversive racism, discrimination against Blacks was more likely when participants could rationalize decisions not to help with reasons having nothing to do with race. Specifically, when helping was lengthier, riskier, more difficult, more effortful, and when potential helpers were further away from targets, less help was given to Blacks than to Whites. Interestingly, discrimination against Blacks was shown when there were higher levels of emergency. This suggests that discrimination may occur when the ability to control prejudicial responding is inhibited, or when the arousal of the emergency is misattributed to intergroup anxiety.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2-16
Number of pages15
JournalPersonality and Social Psychology Review
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Racism
Emergencies
Aptitude
Arousal
Anxiety
hydroquinone

Cite this

Differences in helping whites and blacks : A meta-analysis. / Saucier, Donald A.; Miller, Carol T.; Doucet, Nicole.

In: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2005, p. 2-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Saucier, Donald A. ; Miller, Carol T. ; Doucet, Nicole. / Differences in helping whites and blacks : A meta-analysis. In: Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2005 ; Vol. 9, No. 1. pp. 2-16.
@article{1e14dfad53e240a1afff9ced9568cedd,
title = "Differences in helping whites and blacks: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "The amount of help given to Blacks versus Whites is often assumed to reflect underlying levels of racism (or lack thereof). This meta-analysis assessed discrimination against Blacks in helping studies. The overall effect size for the 48 hypothesis tests did not show universal discrimination against Blacks (d = .03, p = .103). However, consistent with the predictions of aversive racism, discrimination against Blacks was more likely when participants could rationalize decisions not to help with reasons having nothing to do with race. Specifically, when helping was lengthier, riskier, more difficult, more effortful, and when potential helpers were further away from targets, less help was given to Blacks than to Whites. Interestingly, discrimination against Blacks was shown when there were higher levels of emergency. This suggests that discrimination may occur when the ability to control prejudicial responding is inhibited, or when the arousal of the emergency is misattributed to intergroup anxiety.",
author = "Saucier, {Donald A.} and Miller, {Carol T.} and Nicole Doucet",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "2--16",
journal = "Personality and Social Psychology Review",
issn = "1088-8683",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differences in helping whites and blacks

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Saucier, Donald A.

AU - Miller, Carol T.

AU - Doucet, Nicole

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - The amount of help given to Blacks versus Whites is often assumed to reflect underlying levels of racism (or lack thereof). This meta-analysis assessed discrimination against Blacks in helping studies. The overall effect size for the 48 hypothesis tests did not show universal discrimination against Blacks (d = .03, p = .103). However, consistent with the predictions of aversive racism, discrimination against Blacks was more likely when participants could rationalize decisions not to help with reasons having nothing to do with race. Specifically, when helping was lengthier, riskier, more difficult, more effortful, and when potential helpers were further away from targets, less help was given to Blacks than to Whites. Interestingly, discrimination against Blacks was shown when there were higher levels of emergency. This suggests that discrimination may occur when the ability to control prejudicial responding is inhibited, or when the arousal of the emergency is misattributed to intergroup anxiety.

AB - The amount of help given to Blacks versus Whites is often assumed to reflect underlying levels of racism (or lack thereof). This meta-analysis assessed discrimination against Blacks in helping studies. The overall effect size for the 48 hypothesis tests did not show universal discrimination against Blacks (d = .03, p = .103). However, consistent with the predictions of aversive racism, discrimination against Blacks was more likely when participants could rationalize decisions not to help with reasons having nothing to do with race. Specifically, when helping was lengthier, riskier, more difficult, more effortful, and when potential helpers were further away from targets, less help was given to Blacks than to Whites. Interestingly, discrimination against Blacks was shown when there were higher levels of emergency. This suggests that discrimination may occur when the ability to control prejudicial responding is inhibited, or when the arousal of the emergency is misattributed to intergroup anxiety.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=15944391358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=15944391358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_1

DO - 10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_1

M3 - Article

C2 - 15745861

AN - SCOPUS:15944391358

VL - 9

SP - 2

EP - 16

JO - Personality and Social Psychology Review

JF - Personality and Social Psychology Review

SN - 1088-8683

IS - 1

ER -