How psychologists used these doctored Obama photos to get white people to support conservative politics

President Obama delivers the State of the Union address on Jan. 12. (Evan Vucci/Pool via Bloomberg)
American politics always has surprises, but things have been especially unpredictable since President Obama took office. First, few observers were prepared for the tea party movement, which ousted several veteran GOP  lawmakers, replaced them with more radically conservative newcomers, and helped the Republican Party win control of the House of Representatives in 2010.

"That left a lot of analysts slack-jawed, wondering: What was this latent force that drove the emergence of this movement?" said Robb Willer, a sociologist at Stanford University.

Then, of course, there was Donald Trump.

Willer speculates that one thing connecting these two political earthquakes might be white voters' unconscious racial biases. In a series of psychological experiments between 2011 and 2015, he showed how hostility toward people with darker skin and perceived racial threats can influence white support for the tea party. He and his colleagues published a draft of a paper on their findings online last week — some of the most direct evidence of the importance of race to the conservative resurgence during Obama's presidency.

First, the researchers randomly sorted subjects into two groups and showed them a series of pictures of celebrities, including digitally altered images of the commander in chief. One group saw a version in which Obama's skin had been lightened, while in the other version, his skin had been darkened.



Then the researchers asked the subjects in each group whether they supported the tea party. The share that did was a small minority in both groups. Among the 255 white subjects, though, those in the group that had seen the darkened portrait were almost twice as likely to say they supported the movement.

Among the 101 participants of other races or ethnicities, by contrast, those who saw the lightened image of Obama were twice as likely to support the tea party as those who saw the darkened image. Because they had fewer subjects of color, Willer and his colleagues couldn't rule out the possibility that this difference between the randomly assorted groups was due to chance.

The result suggests that some white Americans are more likely to oppose Obama solely because of the shade of his skin. For them, the reality that someone with a dark complexion occupies the nation's highest office could be a source of unease.




Past polls and experiments have also suggested that the president's race has motivated opposition to his policies.
For example, psychologist David Sears and political scientist Michael Tesler found that many white voters were willing to support white liberal politicians such as President Clinton and Secretary of State John Kerry when they were candidates for president, but voted against Obama. Since Clinton, Kerry and Obama all espoused a similar ideology, the pair surmised that Obama must have been less popular because he is black.

[Researchers have found strong evidence that racism helps the GOP win]



Conservative politicians also seemed to respond to racial animosity toward the president. A study last year found that — intentionally or not — some negative  advertisements aired against Obama in 2008 showed him with darker skin.
Willer, though, was able to demonstrate the connection between Obama's skin color and conservative opposition experimentally. The researchers also conducted a few more studies to see whether tea party support might be motivated by signs that the position of white Americans as a privileged majority is declining.

The researchers presented two groups of subjects with apparently innocuous reports about U.S. demographic trends and the white share of the population. One group read a report that showed population data only from 2000 to 2020, making it appear that the white majority remains relatively stable. The other group read a report that showed the trend since 1960 and predictions through 2060, forecasting that the white population would decline into a minority.
Again, there were significantly greater levels of white support for the tea party among those who read the second report, which focused on the declining white  population. Those who read that report rated their level of support for the tea party at an average of 1.62 points on a five-point scale, where a score of 5 signified "a great deal" of support.
Those who read the first report, showing that the white majority was relatively stable, rated their support at an average of 1.28 points. Again, supporters of the tea party were in the minority in both groups.

[Obama’s skin looks a little different in these GOP campaign ads]



Willer and his collaborators repeated the experiment, this time with fictional economic data. In one report, the incomes of ethnic minorities were in decline, while white incomes were unchanged. In the second report, white incomes were declining while other groups' incomes did not change.

In fact, incomes for all racial and ethnic groups have declined in tandem in recent years, with no one group gaining or losing relative to the others.

Yet Willer had a hunch that because white incomes have declined, some of the white participants in the experiment might feel that white households are losing their relative advantage in the U.S. economy. If so, the second report he showed them would have seemed to corroborate this mistaken perception.

Previous research has shown that white Americans tend to see the trend toward racial equity as [url=http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton sommers.pdf]a kind of competition[/url], in which one group's loss must be another group's gain. In particular, research shows, economic distress can exacerbate racial biases, since they give members of the dominant group the mistaken impression their relative position is endangered. White Americans get "the sense that they have a shrinking piece of a pie that is itself shrinking," Willer explained.

With the second report, Willer and his colleagues showed that their subjects reinforced this unconscious bias and produced greater levels of white support for the tea party: Those who saw that report rated their support for the tea party at an average of 1.45 points. Those who saw the first report, showing incomes for racial minorities declining, rated their support at an average of 1.23 points.

This kind of zero-sum thinking doesn't seem common among racial minorities. If it were, then one would expect that minorities who read the first report -- showing their disadvantage increasing -- would be more likely to oppose the tea party as a protest against white privileges.

On the contrary, participants of color who saw the report that emphasized declining white economic status were more likely to oppose the tea party. Again, this difference might have been the product of random chance.

Willer started this series of experiments in 2011. He was already wrapping up the research when Trump announced his presidential campaign by calling Mexican immigrants criminals, so he doesn't have direct evidence on whether racial biases have contributed to Trump's success. Yet other research, including polling by The Washington Post, suggests that some white voters' perception that their dominance as a racial group is threatened has motivated some to cast ballots for the presumptive Republican nominee.

"A lot of analysts have been shocked to see a major party candidate receive so much popular support despite a track record of controversial statements toward multiple ethnic groups," Willer said. "It's less surprising if you think of the tea party as a sort of historical bridge to the Trump candidacy."

The movement, he explained, might have made using the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that Trump has employed more socially acceptable, and past research suggests that the movement could have created a new sense of racial identity among its supporters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/13/how-psychologists-used-these-doctored-obama-photos-to-get-white-people-to-support-conservative-politics/?tid=sm_tw




It's really sad, but it doesn't surprise me.

I actually think he looks more attractive in the darkened pic.

Syl wrote:
I actually think he looks more attractive in the darkened pic.

He does. But this is America, and it's what it signifies.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
I actually think he looks more attractive in the darkened pic.

He does.  But this is America, and it's what it signifies.

Enough people liked his handsome dark looks to vote him in in the first place Quill...so you cant ALL be so shallow.

Tiz a wonder the USA did not have Micky Mouse or Pamela Andersen as a president.

Stormee wrote:Tiz a wonder the USA did not have Micky Mouse or Pamela Andersen as a president.

Or that idiot Trump!

or even worse....

He looks dead with whiter skin!

He's a good-looking guy. Had he been really dark and not so good-looking he probably wouldn't have won

Stormee wrote:
Tiz a wonder the USA did not have Micky Mouse or Pamela Andersen as a president.

AAH, YES  Mr. Stormee...

HOWEVER,  they did manage to get more than halfway there back in the 1980s when they voted Ronnie Raygun in, didn't they !

Ronnie regan was very odd.

Obama looks like a 'bambino' on the L/H photo.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

He does.  But this is America, and it's what it signifies.

Enough people liked his handsome dark looks to vote him in in the first place Quill...so you cant ALL be so shallow.

I know. And it's a credit to Americans--particularly young Americans--that the base of America is moving to the left, and that we can finally have anyone become president. Racism, homophobia and sexism are all being pushed out the door, though North Carolina and the presumptive Republican presidential candidate need some refresher courses on homophobia and sexism, respectively.

Hey...the UK is coming along with us. Recently elected mayor of London is Muslim. You see how the younger lefties are cleaning up our act. Refreshing...to say the least.

Every country has a way to go before they can start preaching about equality don't they?
I thought when Thatcher got in that was a huge step forewards here for equality for women, unfortunately she had none of a womans finer redeeming features and probably put the cause of women back decades rather than advance it.

Hope Hilary does better if she manages to get in.

The country who doesn't even consider colour or gender when going to the polls will be the winner one day.

Sadiq Khan is just another hypocrite...


He will be judged by his actions... and I'm sure it won't be long before he is found out...



Hillarys whole campaign is about urging women to vote for her because she is a woman!!!



Thatcher was the daughter of a grocery shop owner and was brought up in the flat above... it was because of grammar schools that she got the education that her ability deserved and that made it possible for her to manage to get so much further on in life as she did...


The conservatives support the idea of grammar schools that enable the talented disadvantaged kids to have the opportunities that they deserve in a meritocracy...

Oh... and I remember the doctored photos that were released of John charles De menezes a few years ago...

Tommy Monk wrote:Sadiq Khan is just another hypocrite...


He will be judged by his actions... and I'm sure it won't be long before he is found out...

In the meantime, let's give him the benefit of the doubt.  He seem agreeable and quite intelligent from what I've heard.  Certainly nothing about religion or skin color would give anyone any pause, would it?

Tommy Monk wrote:Hillarys whole campaign is about urging women to vote for her because she is a woman!!!

She seems to feel that an equally important part of her campaign is continuing the policies and practices of the Obama administration, since she was a part of that administration.  Since Dr. Obama has been one of the three best presidents ever in the USA in my view, certainly that's a pretty good platform for anyone to run on, male or female.

Trump seems to be more concerned about Hillary's gender...at least the more prurient parts of it.  But that's of no interest to me.

I am much more familiar with Khan and labour than you are...


And Clinton is a sexist...

Tommy Monk wrote:I am much more familiar with Khan and labour than you are...

Just because you are British?  I don't think so.  The world has changed since you've been outside, tommy.

And Clinton is a sexist...

Nah...she is just reminding the voters that she opposes sexists and rapists.  

If a man was using the vote for me cos I'm a man when up against a woman...


Or a white was saying vote for me when up against a non white...


The screams of sexist and racist would be deafening...

Tommy Monk wrote:If a man was using the vote for me cos I'm a man when up against a woman...

Or a white was saying vote for me when up against a non white...

The screams of sexist and racist would be deafening...

There's a world of subtleties that is alien to you, tommy.  It depends on the context.

If Hitler was still bombing Britain, would there be screams of anti-Aryanism for anyone who spoke against the Nazis?  It's a different situation when there is reason to speak out.  In that situation you are wrong not to.

Today in America we have a monumental problem with racism and with sexism.  Both are enemies that are bombarding us daily with injustices.  Women are paid 70¢ on the dollar to men.  Conservatives are trying to curtail their healthcare and legislate for their bodies.  Donald Trump alleges that any female that criticizes him is bleeding out of her vagina.  He feels that any female candidate that is unattractive is not presidential.  Policemen like South Carolinian Michael Slager, and self-appointed southern wannabes like George Zimmerman are drawing their firearms and murdering black people.  Yet, blacks are disproportionately represented in our prisons.  Are these standards that you could abide?

If so, you would probably be arguing to appease and go easy on the Nazis 70-years ago.  As a rule, one speaks out against practices and prejudices that are unacceptable.  Those who defend those same practices and prejudices, then, are the problem.

In a world of equality... the woman is a sexist!

Tommy Monk wrote:In a world of equality... the woman is a sexist!

I think you are wrong on this, and I think you know it. This is a tactic employed often by conservatives: keep repeating conclusions without support.

I understand your need for validation, tommy, just as I understand the baby's need for his bottle. But there are ways to go about it. A 'sexist' and/or a 'racist' are prejudiced persons without justification. When you have cause, you have justification.

The important word is cause. With sexism, there is a cause in that the world discriminates against women. With racism, there is a cause in that the world discriminates against blacks.

When there is no cause, there is no reason to call someone a 'sexist'. Such is the case with Hillary. She points to a 'wrong' in American society. You can point to nothing.