By Richard Morin
Friday, June 9, 2006
Americans are more willing to provide extended government assistance to white victims of Hurricane Katrina than to African Americans and other minorities -- particularly blacks with darker skin.
Overall, the "penalty" for being black and a Katrina victim amounted to about $1,000, according to the latest online study by The Washington Post, washingtonpost.com and Shanto Iyengar, director of the Political Communication Lab at Stanford University.
More than 2,300 individuals participated in the latest experiment, which tested how much subconscious racial bias shapes attitudes toward disaster relief. Participants went to a Web site that featured a brief news article about the effect of the hurricane. A photo of an individual featured in the story accompanied the article.
But here's the trick: The race, gender and occupation of the featured person varied. Some participants read an article about a flood victim named Terry Miller who was depicted in the photo as a black man; others read the same item, except the Terry Miller in the photo was a white man, while in others, Terry became a black or a white woman. (The Latino victim was named Terry Medina.) In some photos, the skin tone of the person was darker; in others, it was lighter.
After reading the article, participants were asked to indicate how much government aid hurricane victims should get for housing and general living expenses. For each type of assistance, participants could give from $200 to $1,200 per month, and from a minimum of three months to a maximum of 18 months.
If race mattered, there would be a difference in the level of assistance favored by respondents who read an article about the white Terry Miller and the assistance favored by those who read about a black Terry Miller.
There was. People were willing to give assistance to a white victim, on average, for about 12 months. But for an African American victim, the average duration was a month shorter while the amount of aid was nearly the same, meaning that blacks would collect about $1,000 less than white victims.
Skin tone also mattered. A darker-skinned black received about $100 a month less over a shorter period of time than a light-skinned white, all other factors being equal -- a huge effect. Content of the articles also made a difference: Participants were the least generous after reading one article on looting.
"These results suggest that news media coverage of natural disasters can shape the audience's response," Iyengar said. "Framing the disaster in ways that evoke racial stereotypes can make people less supportive of large-scale relief efforts. News reports about flooding evoke one set of apparently positive images in the reader's mind; reports about lawlessness evoke quite another."
How to Make Soccer More Interesting
Most Americans greeted the opening of the World Cup in Germany this week with a yawn. Too many low-scoring games. Too many ties, followed by an overtime period when both teams go into a defensive crouch. Too many games decided on the free kicks that follow the overtime period.
Now a University of Southern California economist has applied incentive theory to propose a change in soccer rules that he argues will put more energy -- and perhaps a few more goals -- into soccer.
Juan D. Carrillo proposes conducting free kicks in tie games immediately after regulation time, then playing the overtime period even if one team scored more penalty kicks. If the team that lost the penalty kicks scores a goal in the overtime period, it wins. The penalty kicks only count if the tie is preserved.
"If penalties are shot before overtime, then the team that has won the penalty kicks has greatest incentives to play defensively in order to preserve a tie which is enough to obtain the maximal reward," Carrillo writes in a working paper available on his Web site. "On the opposite side, the team that has lost the penalty kicks has greatest incentives to play offensively so as to break the tie and avoid getting no reward."
Who Would Have Thought?
Fat Jobs, Sex Power and Pro Golf News
" Not all jobs are suitable for fat people: Experimental evidence of a link between being fat and 'out of sight' jobs" by Beatrice Venturini et al. Social Behavior and Personality Vol. 34 No. 4. Italian psychologists determine that people think fat men and women are poorly suited for jobs that require them to have contact with the public.
"Is Power Sexy?" by John Levi Martin. American Journal of Sociology Vol. 111 No. 2. A University of Wisconsin sociologist analyzes data collected from more than 3,000 people living in 60 U.S. communes and determines that, at least in the counter-culture, "there is indeed a connection between sexiness and power [but] it is instead women whose high status increases their sexiness to men."
"Comprehensive Analysis of Golf Performance on the PGA Tour: 1990-2004" by Frederick Wiseman and Sangit Chatterjee. Perceptual and Motor Skills Vol. 102 No. 1. Northeastern University business school researchers find that professional golfers are increasingly hitting longer but less accurate drives.